> ByteDance has had a party committee since 2017 and is headed by CCP secretary and company editor-in-chief Zhang Fuping (張輔評), reported Human Rights Watch. Members of the committee hold regular gatherings at which they study speeches by Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) and "pledge to follow the party in technological innovation."
> In addition, ByteDance on April 25, 2019, signed a strategic cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Public Security's Press and Publicity Bureau (公安部新聞宣傳局) in Beijing. The agreement was billed as "aiming to give full play to the professional technology and platform advantages of Toutiao and Tiktok in big data analysis," strengthen the creation and production of "public security new media works," boost "network influence and online discourse power," and enhance "public security propaganda, guidance, influence, and credibility," among other aspects.
For the associates at the firm, while not making 7 figures [1], their salary is probably OK to justify working weekends, compared to other similar-paying industries (investment banking comes to mind).
The US Government isn't fighting with any part of the US though -- in this case -- they are fighting a foreign actor (that is quite possibly an adversary).
Sure. A judge may fear dealing with the consequences(to him and to his family) for "siding" with a company from a foreign rival country, in case this company claims are valid and should be granted whatever they are requesting.
If American judges are being threatened by the executive branch, that seems a severe form of corruption to me. It also seems unlikely in common scenarios.
In this scenario the judge would be a victim of the corruption. If they capitulated to the threats, they would then simultaneously be participants in and victims of the corruption.
From what I understand it's common for participants in criminal organizations to be victimized by those same organizations, so this apparent contradiction isn't really unusual.
One of the great things about the US legal system (although it's not uniquely American whatsoever) is that it's perfectly possible to prevail against the government in court, and happens on a regular basis. It is especially noteworthy that there is no single person or organization that has authority over both the federal court system and the Department of Commerce.
The entire United States government system is designed to prevent any one part of it from accumulating too much power. This is known as the 'Separation of Powers'. The executive branch is not a dictatorship.
Just because the executive branch of the government says 'tik tok is banned' doesn't mean that it is. You are allowed to challenge the decision in the judicial branch, which is what is happening here.
This is not unusual, and it is also not unusual for the judicial branch to rule against the other branches of government.
That's how any criminal case goes also. A government attorney (prosecutor) is arguing on behalf of the government to a judge that also works for the government, and yet prosecutors lose all the time. The US has independent branches of government for a reason.
Courts basically have to follow a precedent or set a precedent. Setting a precedent is consequential. If this case results in setting a precedent that influences future international commerce, then it becomes a non-trivial deliberation. Being “partial to the US” might not be well defined in this case.
Trump's action in trying to ban TikTok is actually anti-American.
a) It violates the rights of millions of American TikTok users.
b) It violates the rights of thousands of Americans employed by TikTok.
c) It violates the rights of American investors in ByteDance
d) It isn't a security threat---the Chinese don't care what teenagers have on their phones.
Hopefully the courts will side with American rights and the rule of law, here.
I think there is an argument that TikTok needs to be divested from Chinese in the long run. That was already the plan. However, that isn't what's happening now.
Rather, Trump just said he would destroy the company in a short amount of time, creating a firesale (possibly to his friend Larry Ellison). This is property destruction, theft, and gangsterism.
How does the proposed US ban on transactions with TikTok violate users’ rights? Isn’t the application free?
Also, there are many teenagers who are employed by the US government who are entrusted with state secrets, whom any foreign intelligence agency would love to surveil. I would guess that TikTok also has users that aren’t teenagers. The potentiality to steal state secrets over social media is not novel. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a32599593...
> How does the proposed US ban on transactions with TikTok violate users’ rights? Isn’t the application free?
I think Trump is threatening to eliminate the app from the app store. Anyway, the app can't really function with a transaction ban, because it generates revenue from advertisements.
> Also, there are many teenagers who are employed by the US government who are entrusted with state secrets
Members of the military, some federal employees, and the children of some federal employees (e.g. the children of diplomats, for instance) should be banned from using TikTok, out of an over-abundance of caution. My understanding is that this was already the policy (or at least, parts of it were) before Trump decided to destroy TikTok.
Hard to see that you are making a genuine argument here. I mean, the fact that some teenagers are soldiers (for instance) does not begin to justify a blanket ban on the product.
Weird how US laws are made. App was banned in some non-cyber laws countries like India, still Tiktok unable to challenge them. But US here is getting rebuted.
That's because it's not a law, it's a one-sided interference of the executive. If the US Congress made a law properly, TikTok would not be able to challenge it.
Banning a certain foreign company from doing business in the US is not incompatible with constitution as long as it is done following the correct process. It has been done hundreds of times and stood correctly.
It could be "challenged" but it would be dismissed rapidly, because of ample precedent, and the Supreme Court would almost assuredly refuse to take the case.
Right, but these are somewhat uncharted waters. It would be easy for congress to ban Honda doing business with the US but it's less clear if they could ban the American Honda Motor Company.
Indeed. If the AHMC was wholly American owned, there is nothing that could really be done. But forcing ByteDance to divest is already achieving the goal.
As for preventing the American subsidiary to be owned by the current owners, Congress has the power to personally sanction foreign individuals.
Alternatively, Congress would have the power to nationalize (in exchange for a fair market price) the American subsidiary of TikTok and then sell it, legally.
That is true, however this is not technically seizure but instead the prevention of business with American companies. ByteDance would maintain full ownership of all their assets.
Jurisprudence is that Congress can indeed do this, as it has been done and defended many times. As for the executive, that's much dicier.
For all of the weaknesses of the United States, one thing we do have going for us is the strength of the rule of law here, especially where it constrains the powers of the government. India's scores on this issue, especially due process, are much lower. (In particular, check the section discussing regulatory enforcement.)
I went through the list. India is ranked around 50.
If you ignore all the cute european countries like Finland, Denmark, Liechtenstein etc from the top, which doesn't even qualify as a big city in India, I would say India is doing pretty good for a country where 1/6 population of the world live.
> I would say India is doing pretty good for a country where 1/6 population of the world live.
Sure, India is by far the most democratic country of its own size or larger.
But that literally just means “not as bad as China”. It's kind of like if the Republic of Korea (which could support stronger claims, to be sure) was said to be “pretty good for a country located on the Korean peninsula”—it is true, but doesn't say a lot.
Sure. A democracy index where you have countries ranging from less than a million population to greater than 1 billion population also doesn't say a lot :)
It's possible that one of the things it says is that democracy (at least the values measured by the index) is not scale independent, and more specifically democratic values are inherently incompatible with large states. I don't think the second part is actually true, at least with current technology and at the scales involved, but that seems to be the “defense” of India here.
I replied to someone saying "ha ha isn't that weird they can contest it in the US look countries like India just went ahead and banned it and there's no recourse". Great. Other countries can talk about it, go through a legislative process (in Japan lawmakers aren't even going to start talking about their possible options until September), then there are legal challenges and normal processes to go through, etc.
India's democracy is far superior to that of the US (which is TBH, like any two-party system, a bit of a joke - see Bush v Al Gore, dem race Sanders v Clinton), and as for corruption, the US leads the entire world on that score.
The difference is where the corruption happens (lobbying for billion dollar contracts, rather than a private citizen slipping a civil servant a few notes to speed along some approval or another). The former type of corruption doesn't get taken into account in any world corruption index, so Americans think they're not corrupt.
The US is nowhere near leadership in either democracy or corruption. I didn't hold it as the stellar example, beyond countering someone who is surprised (or finds it "weird") that a government has checks and balances, and a legal system. I know few Americans who "think they're not corrupt", nor does that change the fact that India is very corrupt and has a very flawed democracy.
Because being allowed to legally bribe politicians (lobbying), influence them which basically means that politicians have interest of corporations at heart and not that of general population is democracy. Being able to rig primaries so that a candidate that people wanted to vote for as a president can't run for the elections is democracy. Gotcha.
This gives people a chance even if it is the government who is going after them, to turn the tide around.
I would say this is not weird by any means, it is by intentions, and is indeed how most things go about in US. I will be more surprise to see Trump's EO go without challenges.
The way CCP influence works is through a legal requirement for firms to allow or establish internal CCP units inside their company, which are then officially recognized and connected to the CCP. Since this is an alternate method for the company to interact with officials, through their own party member staff, it can become basically your company's representative with the CCP.
The thing is though, the unit members are also still your employees with access to internal information. Since they serve two masters, the company can be tempted to elevate their status internally to improve how they represent the CCP on the other side. And the opposite can happen - employees can be hired with high CCP ranks so that when they join the unit their influence for the company will be stronger.
"One senior executive whose company was represented at the meeting told Reuters some companies were under “political pressure” to revise the terms of their joint ventures with state-owned partners to allow the party final say over business operations and investment decisions."
Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists, considering how tightly China controls and polices which journalists are allowed in and what they write about.
"Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about."
Can you expand on the context behind this picture? In particular what is this flag exactly, it seems like a mash-up between the Chinese flag and a communist flag but I'm not sure what is the exact implication here.
When I zoom in (ctrl+) it appears to me that the people across the top aren't actually holding the flag. The guy on our left is- with one hand, but the others don't seem to be (at least to me, but I'm no photoshop-spotter expert). That is, part of their hands doesn't seem to be blocked by the flag the way I would expect if they were holding it.
The woman in red on our right also doesn't seem to be holding it. It's perhaps a cardboard sign or something? Maybe the picture of the flag was put over it?
Running it through a free online photo forensics tool reveals significant artifacts around the "flag", "logo", as well as each person (especially faces) The entire image could be a composite.
Following your line of arguments, should China find pictures of Microsoft employees in front of the American flag, argue that they stand for the genocide of native Americans, drone strikes of hospitals and expansions of the PRISM program, then nationalize Microsoft assets in China?
Facebook has very bad track record with privacy and abusing use data, tbh they are getting what they deserve.
We are not giving a slack to a company that supports a totalitarian regime, if you see this as support, you can say that Apple is supporting Chinese totalitarian regime too.
Who is this 'we' we're talking about? Clearly the US government gives Facebook all of the slack (arguably since Facebook offers the US intelligence services a panopticon). The only people not giving Facebook slack are activists.
And Tiktok, despite their US arm being a US company, essentially is facing the execution of their business at the hands of the US government unless they do a fire sale under duress.
It's difficult to apply this argument consistently without claiming that any company who decides to operate in China is compromised. A great deal of American companies do operate in China and will be subject with the same legal requirements expected of domestic companies. Journalists may not, but many American business executives perfectly understand how it works.
If you read the suit, in this instance, it appears TikTok claims it is indeed a U.S. company, and thereby protected by the Constitution, safeguarded by due process, and not immediately subject to IEEPA or CFIUS actions.
I personally think they are no where near being a U.S. company, but that is a crux of their argument and we will see if the judge clarifies their position.
> claiming that any company who decides to operate in China is compromised
This, honestly, is the correct approach. For example, it's hard to see otherwise why the NBA is banning anyone affiliated with them from supporting Hong Kong.
1. Who has been banned? AFAIK the league has actually incurred large monetary losses for their position on China.
2. On the contrary, it is very easy to see why the NBA is cautious. The Chinese care about it and so the NBA does not want to spark any more controversy. Can you explain how this isn't just common sense re: operating in a foreign country? Are international companies operating in the US "compromised" if they don't comment on US affairs?
There was also Adrian Wojnarowski but I'm not sure about counting that because there were other factors in play. There may be others that I have missed.
> Can you explain how this isn't just common sense re: operating in a foreign country?
The fact that China makes it in their financial interests to restrict people on being able to comment on matters of international importance is exactly the problem, because this is a classic chilling effect. And, as pointed out, given our lax privacy laws, now China has all of the info they do. Given that they're happy to roll out, e.g. facial recognition and social credit scores, this isn't something to be happy about.
China is a beautiful country with many wonderful people. But I doubt I'll ever visit it as long as I could end up locked up for an old internet comment, like say, this one.
> Are international companies operating in the US "compromised" if they don't comment on US affairs?
You'll find no shortage of criticism of the US government from foreign companies and their workers in private capacity. To make this comparable, imagine if we had CFIUS rules whereby nobody operating in a foreign-owned company (including yours truly, a US citizen) could criticize, say, Trump or any other part of the government without risking their ability to do business.
I don't think anyone would say that it's "common sense" that I can't criticize Trump or the US government while working for a foreign-owned company subject to CFIUS rules, would you?
I think there would, rightfully, be a backlash if Trump tried to change these rules and the companies were put under a chilling effect. So I don't see why Xi should get a pass for that.
Touche on the fans, but that is very arguable as those actions are taken by the arenas. Considering that Morey is Rockets GM to this day, he is definitely not banned. Wojnarowski was suspended by ESPN for a brief period, and for reasons only tangentially related to China.
> You'll find no shortage of criticism of the US government from foreign companies and their workers in private capacity.
Aren't we talking about a public capacity?
I don't think it's fair to say there is no chilling effect in the US currently. I'd expect some severe US backlash if some foreign company was very publicly opinionated about gun control. There is an implicit understanding that certain topics are taboo. Does it really matter whether this effect arises from the local population or the local government?
edit: I don't even agree with the people/government distinction in this case. The Chinese people largely support their government's stance against HK.
I did mark those two as such, so I won't argue that and I was just mentioning them for completeness. I'd note that this was just within the NBA, I recall quite a few gaming companies also banning HK-related stuff, though I don't have links handy. Some of those games had ties back to Ten Cent, a Chinese company, if memory serves.
With regard to fans, I haven't seen other political slogans restricted in any comparable way. The NBA, for example, is very happy to say that Black Lives Matter and I've never heard of anyone getting kicked out a ballgame for wearing, say, a MAGA hat despite both slogans causing some very strong political sentiments. So the fact that HK is somehow more of a concern to the NBA than these hot-button American issues seems like something that demands an explanation.
> Aren't we talking about a public capacity?
I think bans can be troublesome in either capacity, honestly, but I'm more disturbed by restrictions that hit people in their private capacity, even if either realm can create a chilling effect.
> I'd expect some severe US backlash if some foreign company was very publicly opinionated about gun control.
For the record, that has actually happened (I think it was MasterCard restricting certain gun sales & some sporting goods stores dropping guns, e.g. Dicks), but it wasn't government-driven and there was backlash. That's a wholly separate issue and may touch on monopoly concerns. I think some of it got shot down due to running afoul of banking regulations, but I don't know the precise details.
NBA is doing what they are to protect their growing revenue stream from China. They also have not "banned" anyone over this. Calling them "compromised" by the Chinese government is way too much of a stretch.
these are one off incidents in selected arenas. there wasn't a sweeping ban of these messages across the nba, in fact many attendees had pro-HK shirts and were never bothered.
Moreover, i would not be able to enter an arena with a MAGA, Trump, or a Biden poster (altough there was one incident with someone with a MAGA hat), so to imply that these one off incidents are actions that are due to the extensions of the CCP is very much in line with the propagandic rallying cry that we are seeing against China right now.
I agree with OP, this is much more of a financial issue to the NBA, than the NBA being an extension of the CCP which you are trying to imply right now.
I don't see those two things as being materially different. If the CCP is going to mess with their finances unless they make the right noises, that's a chilling effect.
The act of being a "US Company" in the modern world is meaningless, every company that operates in the US is a US company and every company that operates in China is a Chinese company - that's the truest way to view things and it makes corporate nationality meaningless.
The barrier to move HQs and the like is so insanely low for large corporations that companies will gladly do it for even the most marginal tax benefits - a company might even consider hosting a "beauty contest" where they try to get cities to outbid each other in a sick game that deprives everyone of their tax revenue. Of course such an act (both on the company's side, and on the side of cities who decide to participate) is a clear signal of moral bankruptcy - but that's no surprise since America considers cheating other people to be the greatest virtue.
>The barrier to move HQs and the like is so insanely low for large corporations that companies will gladly do it for even the most marginal tax benefits
So why is so much tech stuck on the west coast then?
If it were that simple they'd have all moved (moved their operations and headcount) to lower tax areas by now.
It's only easy to dodge them due to the current rules of accounting - we can work on fixing that component or enforcing minimal VAT taxes down-chain. For instance the US could require that a VAT of at least 20% be paid before reaching the US, then collect any taxes left on the table by, say, the bahamas when they only collect a 2% VAT - the US could gate goods entry based on a 18% fee on the difference.
This applies only to actual goods value (and doesn't look at capturing out-of-band transactions like online orders of virtual goods) but it's a really dead simple and easy to enforce law that'd kill a lot of tax dodging dead.
The real issue isn't that it's hard to tax these companies - it's that there isn't a significant political will in taxing these companies.
I think what we're arguing about is whether or not this distinction should remain meaningless, since one player in this game clearly does not see it that way.
I think that's one side of the discussion, yes. But I think that it's impossible to force corporate citizenship without either
1. A voluntary international accord (that could be broken by any dissenting voices)
2. A single country setting the rules for corporate residency and enforcing them (i.e. the unilateral we don't need no diplomacy approach).
Instead I think the whole idea of primary residence for corporations is utterly unenforceable - I think what countries need to start doing is levying appropriate VAT taxes on added value to companies and possibly force all domestic activity to be executed by domestic labour only. I think, if we actually fixed the loopholes around international tax dodging, we'd be in a position where countries would be quite aware of how much value they have over a given company (i.e. Apple might derive 60% of their value from the US) and then use that proportionality to leverage political pressure on companies as needed.
And, just to clarify, this is essentially the road the CCP has taken and precisely why they seem to have such an outsized amount of control over companies - every country other than China is voluntarily declining to flex their muscles.
I totally disagree. Given how insidious the relationship between big corp and CCP in China can be, the default position should be 'distrust' unless otherwise proven.
The western concepts of 'trust' by default does not apply in a nation that is inherently, even internally for domestic affairs, is primarily based on the distrustful corporate affairs.
I've audited about 200 suppliers in China in last 10 years, it is a repeating motif to 'distrust by default' from small to large companies. Yes, they're not big corporations but the idea that we should treat Chinese companies and German companies in identical trust-worthy fashion, especially when it comes to engagement with the CCP, is an extremely deluded, out-of-touch and misinformed stance.
> Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists
So often I tell people something and they say “source” and I tell them why a source is not possible or spell out the exact limitations in data collection and then downvoted to oblivion with a pile-on of why this worldview is irrelevant
This is not a feature of these kind of websites, it is absolutely a flaw
I would say most of the world is not google-able, if you are doing anything of consequence that affects others politically or financially or legally.
But even if the sourcing isn’t ideal, you learned this somehow, right? Either through personal experience or reading it somewhere. If you don’t know how you learned it, how confident can you be that you understand what’s going on inside Chinese companies? And how can someone who reads your comment have any confidence in it?
The comment you’re replying to links to a news article from Reuters that is apparently based on discussions with company officials. That’s probably as good as we are going to get.
> And how can someone who reads your comment have any confidence in it?
By at least pretending it is valid and understanding that the reasons a source can't be provided is completely rational and having a discussion on that worldview instead of arguing flaws. This is a chronic issue on the internet: arguing flaws for no reason.
I'm not sure what you mean by "valid." I think people can and should be kinder about asking, but it's always fair to ask "how did you learn that" if it's unclear.
But saying you don't remember is a fair response, too.
This process that you’re describing is how establishments, in general, prevent dissent, in general. They control most of the means of information dissemination, journals, media, education institutions, etc., as well as the badges and certifications necessary to create new means.
Why would Taiwanese companies be subject to this? Are you talking about Taiwanese companies operating in China, or are you under the impression that China actually controls Taiwan?
Is this supposed to be surprising? Virtually every large corporation is going to have some synergy with its host country(s). For oversight, compliance, etc. Of course, this relationship is obfuscated in the US, but there is a well-known "revolving door" between Corporate HQs and Washington D.C.
For example, Jigsaw is GOOG's geopolitical "think/do tank". Jigsaw CEO Jared Cohen is a Bush-era State Dept alum and current Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. Jigsaw Director of Policy Scott Carpenter is currently on the board of the infamous National Endowment for Democracy. The NED in turn uses federal resources to back regime-change efforts in foreign countries, primarily through public media campaigns.
These are but two "Wikipedia-tier" examples and should be deeply concerning to those who purport to care about this issue from a libertarian values perspective as opposed to one of vindictive geopolitical poop-flinging.
All this overlooks one simple principle. A democratic society should be held to a higher standard than an authoritarian one.
As an example, we let the guilty go because of lack of evidence, where authoritarian regimes don't.
After 9/11, there was a lot of reporting about the NYPD and others profiling Muslims without any reason.
As someone from Europe, it seems to me like the U.S. "exports democracy" all around the world, with often terrible results, without ever stopping to examine whether its own is still holding and if it really can be held as an example for the world to emulate.
You don't punish an entity simply for where their founders were born. Not in a democracy anyway. If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned.
You don't start torturing, just because you want someone to be able to blame and fast. You don't block markets to someone because someone else on the same land mass pissed you off.
It may seem "unfair" because the CCP has blocked many Western platforms, but you don't have values unless you're willing to uphold them in the most difficult of situations.
Not to mention, it's such a bad look for a President to go after companies which have played a role in amplifying free speech which attacks the President himself (Sarah Cooper, the Tulsa rally fakeout.)
While I conceptually agree, practically - this is a naive take on protecting self interests in an altruistic externalities where if you follow such leaders, the “hawks” amongst the “doves” will wipe out the entire population of doves.
Extreme take of your stance would be to say that we should hold to a higher standards and not strike back if an enemy attacks us because we are peaceful. We should strive to be peaceful, but when time comes, the response should be appropriate to the threat posed.
China should be excluded from the WTO if they don’t want to play a fair game with others.
I think this viewpoint can also be taken too far. "Don't be naive: if we are not aggressive then we will be wiped out" can be used to justify a lot of things.
> the Obama administration has decided to offer a two-tiered system of justice. We might call them the “high-quality” (civilian) tier and “low-quality” (military) tier. The high-quality approach offers greater accuracy; the low-quality approach offers less accuracy. The Obama administration will use the high-quality system against people when it has a strong case, and the low-quality system against people when it has a weak case.
> This approach makes sense. Endless detention without trial is no longer a politically viable option. The government will make a judgment as to whether a suspect is dangerous or not. If the case is good, the high-quality system will be used. If the case is bad, the low-quality system will be used. In this way, the government can ensure that people it thinks are dangerous will be locked up.
> This system is superior to the two possible one-tier systems. A pure low-quality system (military commissions only) suffers from credibility problems. People will not believe that all the people who are convicted are guilty. A pure high-quality system (civilian courts only) would result in too many acquittals. People who the government believes are dangerous will be back on the streets. The two-tiered system allows for credible convictions when credible convictions are possible, and (non-credible) convictions when credible convictions are not possible.
----------
Personally, I don't see how a system of "we'll try you according to the maximum standard of evidence by which we can 100% guarantee that we find you guilty" can be considered "credible", "reasonable", or really anything other than a "gross miscarriage of justice", but let's not just ignore what other people think.
> A democratic society should be held to a higher standard than an authoritarian one.
I'm not sure why this would override prudence.
> If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned.
Why wouldn't a nation mitigate risk? Countries compete and work together, but there is a pattern to US and Chinese sanctioned actions. Ignoring the history in the interest of a manufactured principle is foolish.
A lot of your examples (ie "you don't") do happen all the time all over the world and have throughout history. Shockingly enough, these acts are effective motivators and solutions to underlying problems, in many circumstances. Pretending that they are useless or counterproductive is probably accurate, for some circumstances as well. Not sure why that matters, other than to muddy the conversation.
> Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists, considering how tightly China controls and polices which journalists are allowed in and what they write about.
I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior despite not being a democratic organization.
> "Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about."
I think after the Snowden leaks we’ve been shown to have similar opaque government compelling private company scenarios. There are also the opaque national security letters. After 9/11 we traded a lot of our freedom for security in much the same way “communist” regimes like China operate. At this point we practice most of the same things, which is probably why we know that China does what we do (perhaps even more).
>> Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery
> I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior
I'd have to agree, "rule of law" is one of those concepts that people are happy to agree is VERY IMPORTANT without worrying about whether they agree on what it means.
I mean I don’t personally experience the emotion of irony in relation to that state-of-affairs.
Like, if one were to tell a tale of some non-mainstream Christian commune which gave free healthcare to neighboring cities and then one day one of the commune members went to a hospital in a neighboring city and they charged that member a massive hospital bill, that would similarly not generate that feeling of irony.
I don’t mean to say that the US is a tremendous beacon of light in all respects, but we do have this principle that everyone can have their day in court and in some respects that is one wavelength of light which we are a beacon of, and it is not terribly surprising that we cast this light out to a world which does not cast it back to us. (As you might see, in other respects I think that ‘beacon’ is quite problematic. None of my Dutch relatives are looking over at the US and saying ‘you know what the Netherlands needs? More lawsuits!’ But it does give a certain access to structures of power which in China one is often impotent to actually access.)
China blocked Facebook following the deadly 2009 Ürümqi terrorist attacks because Facebook was negligently allowing ETIM-backed groups to spread disinformation and hatred via their platform. Facebook subsequently refused to filter such content and the ban continues to this day.
Control over the Xinjiang/Uyghur narrative is paramount in the "New Cold War" declared against China by Pompeo this July, so Facebook's actions are not surprising.
China is not a "rule of law" country. Their constitution has a strong guarantee for freedom of speech, for example, but this is meaningless because they don't have an independent judiciary. They do have "rule by law", which basically mean law is used as a means for the officials to accomplish whatever goals they are interested in (vs. rule of law where laws are interpreted independently of goals).
> The laws of a country are unjust, oppressive and the government that enacted them is corrupt.
The laws of a country could be completely just and unoppressive, but it doesn't really matter unless the judiciary has the will and power to use them in the people's best interest.
One of the most interesting books I was ever required to read was Night, by Elie Wiesel. In it he recounts how Holocaust survivors where disbelieved as similar to hysterical when they returned to warn their fellow Jews of the horrors ahead. From page 7:
> Day after day, night after night, he went from one Jewish
house to the next, telling his story and that of Malka, the young
girl who lay dying for three days, and that of Tobie, the tailor who
begged to die before his sons were killed.
> Moishe was not the same. The joy in his eyes was gone. He no
longer sang. He no longer mentioned either God or Kabbalah. He
spoke only of what he had seen. But people not only refused to
believe his tales, they refused to listen.
Some even insinuated
that he only wanted their pity, that he was imagining things. Others flatly said that he had gone mad.
Is it impossible for history to repeat itself with a new Hitler? If not, how could we recognize him (/her)?
It's up to them! They are (hopefully) independent of the State Department and can make their own choices. The basketball community in China is larger than that of America.
There are only two end states here if you insist on this reasoning: either Chinese companies dominate the world, because they can exist under their laws and ours but companies from other countries cannot; or the western world adopts laws like the Chinese and blocks foreign competition with unreasonable requirements (however "lawful" they might be).
If Facebook sues the Chinese government, how would that happen?
Would it take place in: A) American justice system, or in B) Chinese justice system?
The answer is: B) Facebook would have to sue the Chinese in China, in the Chinese jurisdiction subject to Chinese law. And under Chinese law, it is legal for China to block Facebook, therefore there is nothing for Facebook to do there.
Now... TikTok vs the US is a different case. That would take place in American jurisdiction where TikTok may actually have legal path to make this go away.
No, this isn't ironic. It is actually the opposite of irony. The results are completely expected that a company has more recourse against the government in the US than in China. Maybe the word you are looking for is apropos.
It's not ironic because it's not true. Facebook can bring a claim for their ban in China. They won't win as the ban is legal under Chinese law, but can bring it.
They aren't officially banned. If you ask your ISP in China why Facebook isn't working, they will tell you it must be Facebook's fault. The list of banned internet sites is a state secret anyways, so even communicating that Facebook is banned would run afoul of China's state secrets law.
TikTok is an excellent app with great content and an algorithm that works like magic based on your revealed (not stated) preferences. I hope the Microsoft deal comes through without the government demanding a cut.
I wish people would take some time to actually learn about China as it exists today and not how the West imagined it in 2003. The discourse here and in other places (like Reddit) has been of absolute garbage quality. Even in this thread there have been calls for the US to ignore the rule of law and have kangaroo courts that always side with the government, complete misunderstanding of why India banned TikTok (retaliatory blow in a border dispute), and claims that it is ironic that Facebook/Google is banned in China. That last one represents shockingly poor understanding of recent events. For example, western companies choose not to operate in the Chinese market: https://theintercept.com/collections/google-dragonfly-china/
Citizens in a democracy have rights, but they also have a responsibility to try to understand their system of government and the evil forces they contend with.
If the US wants to ban TikTok (maybe it is in fact in our interest to do so, although I personally disagree), there is a due process. Just like Trump has the legal right to end DACA, the courts have upheld that there is a proper way to do that, and it doesn’t involve being capricious: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-uphol...
And this is actually the due process way of banning TikTok and this is within presidential authority - even if you don't like it. If you have an issue with this being the process, it is fully and entirely with congress who deferred this power to the executive.
Still, I don’t know if wild threats out of the blue after a 2 year CFIUS investigation counts as due process. Just because power is delegated to the executive doesn’t mean the executive can wield that power with impunity, see recent Supreme Court decisions.
The legal eagle video does raise additional concerns that aren’t being covered here, like first amendment issues. The timing makes it seem like concerns about TikTok are more about anti-Trump content than actual national security concern.
The Legal Eagle video is also very clear that the IEEPA explicitly restricts power over telecommunications platforms, which clearly seems to apply to TikTok. (17 minutes in)
Watching that video makes me think TikTok has an even stronger case than is being widely reported.
> The timing makes it seem like concerns about TikTok are more about anti-Trump content than actual national security concern.
Before talks of a ban there were discussions about the TikTok app possibly uploading users’ random smartphone gallery content (photos, videos).. That’s technically possible. I don’t know how the government would enforce the app not to have this sort of behaviour.
1. Chinese companies are extensions of the state in a way not analagous to anything in the developed world. This creates a valid national security interest in giving Chinese companies access to telecoms (Huawai), personal information (TikTok) and many other areas; and
2. There is no huge market opportunity in China for Western companies so these companies should stop pressuring politicians to look the other way on China (and, arguably in some cases, to kowtow to beijing). The Chinese government will ensure no Western company "wins" against homegrown companies, all the while dangling that carrot of 1B customers and handout out enough crumbs to keep interest.
As for this lawsuit, I'm no lawyer so can't speak to its merit but consider this: trade agreements (WTO/GATT) call for reciprocity. In trade terms, I'd say the US is well within its right to deny access to the US market to Chinese companies in the same way US companies are denied access to the Chinese market.
Enforcement of censorship in China is painted as just obeying local laws. Ok, but what's to stop the US arguing that they require companies operating within its borders not to enable spying on citizens, religious persecution and other human rights violations?
1) China is very developed and developing fast. US companies are also extensions of the state, especially when things like National Security Letters come into play. There’s no transparency or oversight (or constitutional rights) when NSLs are involved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Note: there are rules, but rule violations (that we know about) numbered in the thousands a decade ago.
2) Apple is going to lose _a lot_ of current and future customers in China if the WeChat/Tencent ban moved forward, to name just one $2 trillion example.
You’re right about one thing: if we want to go after China, we should be using a principled approach on trade.
They can, but since they have to go through the courts, the process is much more difficult and there are more opportunities for someone (like the media) to find out about it.
It isn't binary, the powers would never be the same even if they sound similar.
They are still courts. They are still presided by judges, you can't just get approval without justification or a paper trail. They still leak like crazy to the media.
And again, it isn't binary. You can't say the USA and China's systems are just as bad, one is much worse than the other even if neither is perfect or even good.
As for FISA court, the government is allowed to destroy the paper trail and the public is not allowed to know the justification, so it might as well not exist.
Also, the NSA spying on US citizens illegally and covertly without a warrant is worse than a public Chinese courts, undeniably.
Your point that fisa courts, which are considered an unnecessary western luxury in the Chinese system and have restricted usage in the USA system somehow make the American system as bad as China? And then you mention PRISM, a system that takes and stores photographs of passports (for all I can find on the web, you don’t bother to provide your own links), as somehow worse or as worse as the Chinese system?
No, you are just incorrect here. You can’t really compare a country that doesn’t even subscribe to the ideal of rule of law as being somehow equivalent to one that does and has actual enshrined rights and an independent judiciary to back them up. Yes, the USA could be a lot better, but it doesn’t have much in common with a characteristically illiberal system.
>Your point that fisa courts, which are considered an unnecessary western luxury in the Chinese system and have restricted usage in the USA system somehow make the American system as bad as China?
Yup, restricted as in asking multiple companies to give away almost all of their data. A ton of restraint, limiting yourself to the very minimum of data, such as oh I don't know the entirety of phone call logs for every single user? That makes it functionally as bad as China.
As for PRISM, I think you missed the mark almost entirely. Glenn Greenwald, after contact with Snowden, gave a description that goes something like this :
"Also according to The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald even low-level NSA analysts are allowed to search and listen to the communications of Americans and other people without court approval and supervision. Greenwald said low level Analysts can, via systems like PRISM, "listen to whatever emails they want, whatever telephone calls, browsing histories, Microsoft Word documents.[30] And it's all done with no need to go to a court, with no need to even get supervisor approval on the part of the analyst"
Does that seem like a system that takes and stores photographs of passports? This is literally the #1 Google result for PRISM, by the way.
>No, you are just incorrect here. You can’t really compare a country that doesn’t even subscribe to the ideal of rule of law as being somehow equivalent to one that does and has actual enshrined rights and an independent judiciary to back them up. Yes, the USA could be a lot better, but it doesn’t have much in common with a characteristically illiberal system.
Something said very confidently for someone that doesn't know how FISA courts operate or anything about the PRISM program. I don't think "* low-level NSA analysts are allowed to search and listen to the communications of Americans and other people without court approval and supervision*" reflects "enshrined rights and an independent judiciary to back them up". But calling dragnet spying without a warrant characteristically liberal is an interesting take.
All in all, you seem very willing to defend the US Government without having the most basic knowledge of their abuse. It is impossible to evaluate the Chinese vs US practices in reality if you have a stereotypical view of one and an at best theoretical view of the other.
181 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 197 ms ] thread> In addition, ByteDance on April 25, 2019, signed a strategic cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Public Security's Press and Publicity Bureau (公安部新聞宣傳局) in Beijing. The agreement was billed as "aiming to give full play to the professional technology and platform advantages of Toutiao and Tiktok in big data analysis," strengthen the creation and production of "public security new media works," boost "network influence and online discourse power," and enhance "public security propaganda, guidance, influence, and credibility," among other aspects.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3982027
1: https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=covington&job=&city=&year=...
If it’s done right we call this checks and balances.
If it’s done wrong we have lots of other names for it.
The US government does not go after a judges family if they make the "wrong" ruling.
I'm pretty sure there are cases of them going after the judicial branch as well, i'll just have to look for it again.
From what I understand it's common for participants in criminal organizations to be victimized by those same organizations, so this apparent contradiction isn't really unusual.
Just because the executive branch of the government says 'tik tok is banned' doesn't mean that it is. You are allowed to challenge the decision in the judicial branch, which is what is happening here.
This is not unusual, and it is also not unusual for the judicial branch to rule against the other branches of government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
a) It violates the rights of millions of American TikTok users.
b) It violates the rights of thousands of Americans employed by TikTok.
c) It violates the rights of American investors in ByteDance
d) It isn't a security threat---the Chinese don't care what teenagers have on their phones.
Hopefully the courts will side with American rights and the rule of law, here.
I think there is an argument that TikTok needs to be divested from Chinese in the long run. That was already the plan. However, that isn't what's happening now.
Rather, Trump just said he would destroy the company in a short amount of time, creating a firesale (possibly to his friend Larry Ellison). This is property destruction, theft, and gangsterism.
Also, there are many teenagers who are employed by the US government who are entrusted with state secrets, whom any foreign intelligence agency would love to surveil. I would guess that TikTok also has users that aren’t teenagers. The potentiality to steal state secrets over social media is not novel. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a32599593...
I think Trump is threatening to eliminate the app from the app store. Anyway, the app can't really function with a transaction ban, because it generates revenue from advertisements.
> Also, there are many teenagers who are employed by the US government who are entrusted with state secrets
Members of the military, some federal employees, and the children of some federal employees (e.g. the children of diplomats, for instance) should be banned from using TikTok, out of an over-abundance of caution. My understanding is that this was already the policy (or at least, parts of it were) before Trump decided to destroy TikTok.
Hard to see that you are making a genuine argument here. I mean, the fact that some teenagers are soldiers (for instance) does not begin to justify a blanket ban on the product.
Edit: According to the company themselves, it was their largest overseas market with a userbase of 200 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_and_unio...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/07/04/tiktok-lo...
Of course it would. The Supreme Court can "invalidate laws, acts and governmental actions that are incompatible with" the Constitution [1][2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_...
It could be "challenged" but it would be dismissed rapidly, because of ample precedent, and the Supreme Court would almost assuredly refuse to take the case.
As for preventing the American subsidiary to be owned by the current owners, Congress has the power to personally sanction foreign individuals.
Alternatively, Congress would have the power to nationalize (in exchange for a fair market price) the American subsidiary of TikTok and then sell it, legally.
Jurisprudence is that Congress can indeed do this, as it has been done and defended many times. As for the executive, that's much dicier.
https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/document...
India, used as the example, has a very flawed democracy and a high degree of corruption.
EDIT: LOL, downvoted to oblivion by the HN India contingent. As provided elsewhere, India's democratic and corruption rankings are mediocre.
How come?
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi
India is no benchmark. There are far worse countries, but if someone cites India's actions as an example, it falls flat.
I went through the list. India is ranked around 50.
If you ignore all the cute european countries like Finland, Denmark, Liechtenstein etc from the top, which doesn't even qualify as a big city in India, I would say India is doing pretty good for a country where 1/6 population of the world live.
Sure, India is by far the most democratic country of its own size or larger.
But that literally just means “not as bad as China”. It's kind of like if the Republic of Korea (which could support stronger claims, to be sure) was said to be “pretty good for a country located on the Korean peninsula”—it is true, but doesn't say a lot.
It's possible that one of the things it says is that democracy (at least the values measured by the index) is not scale independent, and more specifically democratic values are inherently incompatible with large states. I don't think the second part is actually true, at least with current technology and at the scales involved, but that seems to be the “defense” of India here.
https://archive.vn/hmUx2
I replied to someone saying "ha ha isn't that weird they can contest it in the US look countries like India just went ahead and banned it and there's no recourse". Great. Other countries can talk about it, go through a legislative process (in Japan lawmakers aren't even going to start talking about their possible options until September), then there are legal challenges and normal processes to go through, etc.
The difference is where the corruption happens (lobbying for billion dollar contracts, rather than a private citizen slipping a civil servant a few notes to speed along some approval or another). The former type of corruption doesn't get taken into account in any world corruption index, so Americans think they're not corrupt.
I would say this is not weird by any means, it is by intentions, and is indeed how most things go about in US. I will be more surprise to see Trump's EO go without challenges.
The thing is though, the unit members are also still your employees with access to internal information. Since they serve two masters, the company can be tempted to elevate their status internally to improve how they represent the CCP on the other side. And the opposite can happen - employees can be hired with high CCP ranks so that when they join the unit their influence for the company will be stronger.
"One senior executive whose company was represented at the meeting told Reuters some companies were under “political pressure” to revise the terms of their joint ventures with state-owned partners to allow the party final say over business operations and investment decisions."
Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists, considering how tightly China controls and polices which journalists are allowed in and what they write about.
"Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies-...
https://na.cx/i/YW5ziy9.jpg
EDIT: oh that's the flag of the Chinese communist party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party
For some reason I expected that they would just use the Chinese flag itself, since there's no plurality.
The woman in red on our right also doesn't seem to be holding it. It's perhaps a cardboard sign or something? Maybe the picture of the flag was put over it?
Again, I'm no expert but it looks off to me.
[1] from https://www.jenniferzengblog.com/home/2020/8/5/bytedance-hea..., which also has archive links for the page in question and additional circumstantial evidence.
fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=ffaac5beff95e49e8bd59097ac36afb61e83086c.59039&show=ela
When it's Facebook which is subject to scrutiny of many major democratic governments and press, we gives it no slack.
Ironic and funny.
We are not giving a slack to a company that supports a totalitarian regime, if you see this as support, you can say that Apple is supporting Chinese totalitarian regime too.
sure, I'm ok with that
And Tiktok, despite their US arm being a US company, essentially is facing the execution of their business at the hands of the US government unless they do a fire sale under duress.
If you read the suit, in this instance, it appears TikTok claims it is indeed a U.S. company, and thereby protected by the Constitution, safeguarded by due process, and not immediately subject to IEEPA or CFIUS actions.
I personally think they are no where near being a U.S. company, but that is a crux of their argument and we will see if the judge clarifies their position.
This, honestly, is the correct approach. For example, it's hard to see otherwise why the NBA is banning anyone affiliated with them from supporting Hong Kong.
2. On the contrary, it is very easy to see why the NBA is cautious. The Chinese care about it and so the NBA does not want to spark any more controversy. Can you explain how this isn't just common sense re: operating in a foreign country? Are international companies operating in the US "compromised" if they don't comment on US affairs?
Various fans have been banned - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/hong-kong-nba-fa...
Daryl Morey (disputed) - https://qz.com/1730643/china-asked-nba-to-fire-daryl-morey-f...
There was also Adrian Wojnarowski but I'm not sure about counting that because there were other factors in play. There may be others that I have missed.
> Can you explain how this isn't just common sense re: operating in a foreign country?
The fact that China makes it in their financial interests to restrict people on being able to comment on matters of international importance is exactly the problem, because this is a classic chilling effect. And, as pointed out, given our lax privacy laws, now China has all of the info they do. Given that they're happy to roll out, e.g. facial recognition and social credit scores, this isn't something to be happy about.
China is a beautiful country with many wonderful people. But I doubt I'll ever visit it as long as I could end up locked up for an old internet comment, like say, this one.
> Are international companies operating in the US "compromised" if they don't comment on US affairs?
You'll find no shortage of criticism of the US government from foreign companies and their workers in private capacity. To make this comparable, imagine if we had CFIUS rules whereby nobody operating in a foreign-owned company (including yours truly, a US citizen) could criticize, say, Trump or any other part of the government without risking their ability to do business.
I don't think anyone would say that it's "common sense" that I can't criticize Trump or the US government while working for a foreign-owned company subject to CFIUS rules, would you?
I think there would, rightfully, be a backlash if Trump tried to change these rules and the companies were put under a chilling effect. So I don't see why Xi should get a pass for that.
> You'll find no shortage of criticism of the US government from foreign companies and their workers in private capacity.
Aren't we talking about a public capacity?
I don't think it's fair to say there is no chilling effect in the US currently. I'd expect some severe US backlash if some foreign company was very publicly opinionated about gun control. There is an implicit understanding that certain topics are taboo. Does it really matter whether this effect arises from the local population or the local government?
edit: I don't even agree with the people/government distinction in this case. The Chinese people largely support their government's stance against HK.
With regard to fans, I haven't seen other political slogans restricted in any comparable way. The NBA, for example, is very happy to say that Black Lives Matter and I've never heard of anyone getting kicked out a ballgame for wearing, say, a MAGA hat despite both slogans causing some very strong political sentiments. So the fact that HK is somehow more of a concern to the NBA than these hot-button American issues seems like something that demands an explanation.
> Aren't we talking about a public capacity?
I think bans can be troublesome in either capacity, honestly, but I'm more disturbed by restrictions that hit people in their private capacity, even if either realm can create a chilling effect.
> I'd expect some severe US backlash if some foreign company was very publicly opinionated about gun control.
For the record, that has actually happened (I think it was MasterCard restricting certain gun sales & some sporting goods stores dropping guns, e.g. Dicks), but it wasn't government-driven and there was backlash. That's a wholly separate issue and may touch on monopoly concerns. I think some of it got shot down due to running afoul of banking regulations, but I don't know the precise details.
> if they don't comment on US affairs?
should be:
> If they ban their associates from commenting on US affairs
Moreover, i would not be able to enter an arena with a MAGA, Trump, or a Biden poster (altough there was one incident with someone with a MAGA hat), so to imply that these one off incidents are actions that are due to the extensions of the CCP is very much in line with the propagandic rallying cry that we are seeing against China right now.
I agree with OP, this is much more of a financial issue to the NBA, than the NBA being an extension of the CCP which you are trying to imply right now.
The barrier to move HQs and the like is so insanely low for large corporations that companies will gladly do it for even the most marginal tax benefits - a company might even consider hosting a "beauty contest" where they try to get cities to outbid each other in a sick game that deprives everyone of their tax revenue. Of course such an act (both on the company's side, and on the side of cities who decide to participate) is a clear signal of moral bankruptcy - but that's no surprise since America considers cheating other people to be the greatest virtue.
So why is so much tech stuck on the west coast then?
If it were that simple they'd have all moved (moved their operations and headcount) to lower tax areas by now.
This applies only to actual goods value (and doesn't look at capturing out-of-band transactions like online orders of virtual goods) but it's a really dead simple and easy to enforce law that'd kill a lot of tax dodging dead.
The real issue isn't that it's hard to tax these companies - it's that there isn't a significant political will in taxing these companies.
1. A voluntary international accord (that could be broken by any dissenting voices)
2. A single country setting the rules for corporate residency and enforcing them (i.e. the unilateral we don't need no diplomacy approach).
Instead I think the whole idea of primary residence for corporations is utterly unenforceable - I think what countries need to start doing is levying appropriate VAT taxes on added value to companies and possibly force all domestic activity to be executed by domestic labour only. I think, if we actually fixed the loopholes around international tax dodging, we'd be in a position where countries would be quite aware of how much value they have over a given company (i.e. Apple might derive 60% of their value from the US) and then use that proportionality to leverage political pressure on companies as needed.
And, just to clarify, this is essentially the road the CCP has taken and precisely why they seem to have such an outsized amount of control over companies - every country other than China is voluntarily declining to flex their muscles.
The western concepts of 'trust' by default does not apply in a nation that is inherently, even internally for domestic affairs, is primarily based on the distrustful corporate affairs.
I've audited about 200 suppliers in China in last 10 years, it is a repeating motif to 'distrust by default' from small to large companies. Yes, they're not big corporations but the idea that we should treat Chinese companies and German companies in identical trust-worthy fashion, especially when it comes to engagement with the CCP, is an extremely deluded, out-of-touch and misinformed stance.
So often I tell people something and they say “source” and I tell them why a source is not possible or spell out the exact limitations in data collection and then downvoted to oblivion with a pile-on of why this worldview is irrelevant
This is not a feature of these kind of websites, it is absolutely a flaw
I would say most of the world is not google-able, if you are doing anything of consequence that affects others politically or financially or legally.
The comment you’re replying to links to a news article from Reuters that is apparently based on discussions with company officials. That’s probably as good as we are going to get.
By at least pretending it is valid and understanding that the reasons a source can't be provided is completely rational and having a discussion on that worldview instead of arguing flaws. This is a chronic issue on the internet: arguing flaws for no reason.
But saying you don't remember is a fair response, too.
Link found via Google: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic...
No, I don’t have a source.
For example, Jigsaw is GOOG's geopolitical "think/do tank". Jigsaw CEO Jared Cohen is a Bush-era State Dept alum and current Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. Jigsaw Director of Policy Scott Carpenter is currently on the board of the infamous National Endowment for Democracy. The NED in turn uses federal resources to back regime-change efforts in foreign countries, primarily through public media campaigns.
These are but two "Wikipedia-tier" examples and should be deeply concerning to those who purport to care about this issue from a libertarian values perspective as opposed to one of vindictive geopolitical poop-flinging.
As an example, we let the guilty go because of lack of evidence, where authoritarian regimes don't.
After 9/11, there was a lot of reporting about the NYPD and others profiling Muslims without any reason.
As someone from Europe, it seems to me like the U.S. "exports democracy" all around the world, with often terrible results, without ever stopping to examine whether its own is still holding and if it really can be held as an example for the world to emulate.
You don't punish an entity simply for where their founders were born. Not in a democracy anyway. If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned.
You don't start torturing, just because you want someone to be able to blame and fast. You don't block markets to someone because someone else on the same land mass pissed you off.
It may seem "unfair" because the CCP has blocked many Western platforms, but you don't have values unless you're willing to uphold them in the most difficult of situations.
Extreme take of your stance would be to say that we should hold to a higher standards and not strike back if an enemy attacks us because we are peaceful. We should strive to be peaceful, but when time comes, the response should be appropriate to the threat posed.
China should be excluded from the WTO if they don’t want to play a fair game with others.
I admire your righteousness though.
I think the distinction between "Capitalism" as a philosophy and "US Capitalism" (ie economic ties to the US) is being confused here.
So would Kissinger, I would bet.
I mean, that's one theory. Here's Eric Posner:
http://volokh.com/2009/11/18/why-has-holder-decided-to-try-k...
> the Obama administration has decided to offer a two-tiered system of justice. We might call them the “high-quality” (civilian) tier and “low-quality” (military) tier. The high-quality approach offers greater accuracy; the low-quality approach offers less accuracy. The Obama administration will use the high-quality system against people when it has a strong case, and the low-quality system against people when it has a weak case.
> This approach makes sense. Endless detention without trial is no longer a politically viable option. The government will make a judgment as to whether a suspect is dangerous or not. If the case is good, the high-quality system will be used. If the case is bad, the low-quality system will be used. In this way, the government can ensure that people it thinks are dangerous will be locked up.
> This system is superior to the two possible one-tier systems. A pure low-quality system (military commissions only) suffers from credibility problems. People will not believe that all the people who are convicted are guilty. A pure high-quality system (civilian courts only) would result in too many acquittals. People who the government believes are dangerous will be back on the streets. The two-tiered system allows for credible convictions when credible convictions are possible, and (non-credible) convictions when credible convictions are not possible.
----------
Personally, I don't see how a system of "we'll try you according to the maximum standard of evidence by which we can 100% guarantee that we find you guilty" can be considered "credible", "reasonable", or really anything other than a "gross miscarriage of justice", but let's not just ignore what other people think.
I'm not sure why this would override prudence.
> If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned.
Why wouldn't a nation mitigate risk? Countries compete and work together, but there is a pattern to US and Chinese sanctioned actions. Ignoring the history in the interest of a manufactured principle is foolish.
A lot of your examples (ie "you don't") do happen all the time all over the world and have throughout history. Shockingly enough, these acts are effective motivators and solutions to underlying problems, in many circumstances. Pretending that they are useless or counterproductive is probably accurate, for some circumstances as well. Not sure why that matters, other than to muddy the conversation.
I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior despite not being a democratic organization.
> "Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about."
I think after the Snowden leaks we’ve been shown to have similar opaque government compelling private company scenarios. There are also the opaque national security letters. After 9/11 we traded a lot of our freedom for security in much the same way “communist” regimes like China operate. At this point we practice most of the same things, which is probably why we know that China does what we do (perhaps even more).
> I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior
I'd have to agree, "rule of law" is one of those concepts that people are happy to agree is VERY IMPORTANT without worrying about whether they agree on what it means.
Like, if one were to tell a tale of some non-mainstream Christian commune which gave free healthcare to neighboring cities and then one day one of the commune members went to a hospital in a neighboring city and they charged that member a massive hospital bill, that would similarly not generate that feeling of irony.
I don’t mean to say that the US is a tremendous beacon of light in all respects, but we do have this principle that everyone can have their day in court and in some respects that is one wavelength of light which we are a beacon of, and it is not terribly surprising that we cast this light out to a world which does not cast it back to us. (As you might see, in other respects I think that ‘beacon’ is quite problematic. None of my Dutch relatives are looking over at the US and saying ‘you know what the Netherlands needs? More lawsuits!’ But it does give a certain access to structures of power which in China one is often impotent to actually access.)
It is not even a remotely similar situation.
Control over the Xinjiang/Uyghur narrative is paramount in the "New Cold War" declared against China by Pompeo this July, so Facebook's actions are not surprising.
- If you wish to do business in a country you must follow their laws.
- The laws of a country are unjust, oppressive and the government that enacted them is corrupt.
> The laws of a country are unjust, oppressive and the government that enacted them is corrupt.
The laws of a country could be completely just and unoppressive, but it doesn't really matter unless the judiciary has the will and power to use them in the people's best interest.
Bytedance can comply to US’ requirement of untying CCP. but a simple google search tells the truth
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%AD%97%E8%8A%82%E8%B7%B3%...
As a Chinese, I want someone be tough on The new Hitler, I don’t care if Volkswagen is caught in the middle.
> Day after day, night after night, he went from one Jewish house to the next, telling his story and that of Malka, the young girl who lay dying for three days, and that of Tobie, the tailor who begged to die before his sons were killed.
> Moishe was not the same. The joy in his eyes was gone. He no longer sang. He no longer mentioned either God or Kabbalah. He spoke only of what he had seen. But people not only refused to believe his tales, they refused to listen. Some even insinuated that he only wanted their pity, that he was imagining things. Others flatly said that he had gone mad.
Is it impossible for history to repeat itself with a new Hitler? If not, how could we recognize him (/her)?
Would it take place in: A) American justice system, or in B) Chinese justice system?
The answer is: B) Facebook would have to sue the Chinese in China, in the Chinese jurisdiction subject to Chinese law. And under Chinese law, it is legal for China to block Facebook, therefore there is nothing for Facebook to do there.
Now... TikTok vs the US is a different case. That would take place in American jurisdiction where TikTok may actually have legal path to make this go away.
American corporations themselves are also a national security threat. Tax evasion, lobbying, etc.
TikTok is an excellent app with great content and an algorithm that works like magic based on your revealed (not stated) preferences. I hope the Microsoft deal comes through without the government demanding a cut.
Citizens in a democracy have rights, but they also have a responsibility to try to understand their system of government and the evil forces they contend with.
If the US wants to ban TikTok (maybe it is in fact in our interest to do so, although I personally disagree), there is a due process. Just like Trump has the legal right to end DACA, the courts have upheld that there is a proper way to do that, and it doesn’t involve being capricious: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-uphol...
There is lots of good coverage of China available in the West, and for folks who are interested, here’s a recent article to start with: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic...
Legal Eagle has a good explainer on this: [video warning] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnjhHPU-uRw
Still, I don’t know if wild threats out of the blue after a 2 year CFIUS investigation counts as due process. Just because power is delegated to the executive doesn’t mean the executive can wield that power with impunity, see recent Supreme Court decisions.
The legal eagle video does raise additional concerns that aren’t being covered here, like first amendment issues. The timing makes it seem like concerns about TikTok are more about anti-Trump content than actual national security concern.
The Legal Eagle video is also very clear that the IEEPA explicitly restricts power over telecommunications platforms, which clearly seems to apply to TikTok. (17 minutes in)
Watching that video makes me think TikTok has an even stronger case than is being widely reported.
Before talks of a ban there were discussions about the TikTok app possibly uploading users’ random smartphone gallery content (photos, videos).. That’s technically possible. I don’t know how the government would enforce the app not to have this sort of behaviour.
In other news, blacks choose not to be slaves to white masters.
1. Chinese companies are extensions of the state in a way not analagous to anything in the developed world. This creates a valid national security interest in giving Chinese companies access to telecoms (Huawai), personal information (TikTok) and many other areas; and
2. There is no huge market opportunity in China for Western companies so these companies should stop pressuring politicians to look the other way on China (and, arguably in some cases, to kowtow to beijing). The Chinese government will ensure no Western company "wins" against homegrown companies, all the while dangling that carrot of 1B customers and handout out enough crumbs to keep interest.
As for this lawsuit, I'm no lawyer so can't speak to its merit but consider this: trade agreements (WTO/GATT) call for reciprocity. In trade terms, I'd say the US is well within its right to deny access to the US market to Chinese companies in the same way US companies are denied access to the Chinese market.
Enforcement of censorship in China is painted as just obeying local laws. Ok, but what's to stop the US arguing that they require companies operating within its borders not to enable spying on citizens, religious persecution and other human rights violations?
1) China is very developed and developing fast. US companies are also extensions of the state, especially when things like National Security Letters come into play. There’s no transparency or oversight (or constitutional rights) when NSLs are involved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Note: there are rules, but rule violations (that we know about) numbered in the thousands a decade ago.
2) Apple is going to lose _a lot_ of current and future customers in China if the WeChat/Tencent ban moved forward, to name just one $2 trillion example.
You’re right about one thing: if we want to go after China, we should be using a principled approach on trade.
It isn't binary, the powers would never be the same even if they sound similar.
What if the US State Department uses PRISM or a related program instead?
And again, it isn't binary. You can't say the USA and China's systems are just as bad, one is much worse than the other even if neither is perfect or even good.
As for FISA court, the government is allowed to destroy the paper trail and the public is not allowed to know the justification, so it might as well not exist.
Also, the NSA spying on US citizens illegally and covertly without a warrant is worse than a public Chinese courts, undeniably.
No, you are just incorrect here. You can’t really compare a country that doesn’t even subscribe to the ideal of rule of law as being somehow equivalent to one that does and has actual enshrined rights and an independent judiciary to back them up. Yes, the USA could be a lot better, but it doesn’t have much in common with a characteristically illiberal system.
Yup, restricted as in asking multiple companies to give away almost all of their data. A ton of restraint, limiting yourself to the very minimum of data, such as oh I don't know the entirety of phone call logs for every single user? That makes it functionally as bad as China.
As for PRISM, I think you missed the mark almost entirely. Glenn Greenwald, after contact with Snowden, gave a description that goes something like this :
"Also according to The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald even low-level NSA analysts are allowed to search and listen to the communications of Americans and other people without court approval and supervision. Greenwald said low level Analysts can, via systems like PRISM, "listen to whatever emails they want, whatever telephone calls, browsing histories, Microsoft Word documents.[30] And it's all done with no need to go to a court, with no need to even get supervisor approval on the part of the analyst"
Does that seem like a system that takes and stores photographs of passports? This is literally the #1 Google result for PRISM, by the way.
>No, you are just incorrect here. You can’t really compare a country that doesn’t even subscribe to the ideal of rule of law as being somehow equivalent to one that does and has actual enshrined rights and an independent judiciary to back them up. Yes, the USA could be a lot better, but it doesn’t have much in common with a characteristically illiberal system.
Something said very confidently for someone that doesn't know how FISA courts operate or anything about the PRISM program. I don't think "* low-level NSA analysts are allowed to search and listen to the communications of Americans and other people without court approval and supervision*" reflects "enshrined rights and an independent judiciary to back them up". But calling dragnet spying without a warrant characteristically liberal is an interesting take.
All in all, you seem very willing to defend the US Government without having the most basic knowledge of their abuse. It is impossible to evaluate the Chinese vs US practices in reality if you have a stereotypical view of one and an at best theoretical view of the other.
As for the source, you'll find it quite obvious : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#E...
Wait. Are you sure you mean China not the US? https://www.businessinsider.com/how-hillary-clinton-uses-soc...