As of September 20, 2020, the following transactions are prohibited:
1. Any provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S.;
2. Any provision of services through the WeChat mobile application for the purpose of transferring funds or processing payments within the U.S.
As of September 20, 2020, for WeChat and as of November 12, 2020, for TikTok, the following transactions are prohibited:
1. Any provision of internet hosting services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
2. Any provision of content delivery network services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
3. Any provision directly contracted or arranged internet transit or peering services enabling the function or optimization of the mobile application within the U.S.;
4.Any utilization of the mobile application’s constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the U.S.
---
That last piece especially is quite concerning, and seems like a clear overreach of federal authority, no? Don't know that I've ever seen execution of software alone as an enforceable offense, and as written it seems to outlaw even opening up the app if you previously have it downloaded.
>1. Any provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S.;
Does that mean the two apps are essentially banned from iOS?
Apple reviews apps anyway, so that last bit could be enforced at the review stage.
Android? You're right. I'm not seeing how they enforce that? Of course, one obvious solution is to force all the app stores to have some sort of review process that verifies all of the apps are functioning in a manner consistent with, um, "US government policy". Just depends on how far the guys in the Trump administration want to go.
>> 2. Any provision of content delivery network services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
That's the big one. That would suggest blocking by ISPs, something that is technically not easy and legally troubling. Do ISPs now have to block the activities of Chinese phones traveling to the US? That will take effort.
Canada and the US are pretty integrated. Do US ISPs need to block WeChat traffic that is transiting the US, say coming from China to a user standing in Canada or the UK? That sort of blocking could have serious impacts beyond wechat/tiktok.
This is analogous to saying it would be impossible to have an effective federal government if what people say is somehow exempt from their oversight. That would be a giant loophole.
Which, true, is in fact an argument often made.
Software execution itself is not the issue. Criminal intent is the issue.
> The President has provided until November 12 for the national security concerns posed by TikTok to be resolved. If they are, the prohibitions in this order may be lifted.
Not seeing this bit being discussed elsewhere. The whole Oracle deal may not be dead after all.
> The prohibitions raise the question of whether Google and Apple, the major operators of American app stores, could sue the administration.
> Tech companies have made clear that they don’t like the idea of blocking apps without a more organized policy process, and have suggested that they see this as a First Amendment issue, said Adam Segal, a cybersecurity expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.
> Mr. Segal said it was not entirely clear why the administration had chosen to go after these two Chinese services, and not other similar ones. “A lot of it just feels to me to be improvisational,” he said.
> Tech companies have made clear that they don’t like the idea of blocking apps without a more organized policy process, and have suggested that they see this as a First Amendment issue, said Adam Segal, a cybersecurity expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Yet they're both perfectly fine with blocking apps for arbitrary reasons citing "app store policy".
Lets be blunt here, whether you agree with the Tiktok issue or not, for Apple and Google this is purely a money issue. They are probably afraid this will increase support for third party app stores among the masses
> Yet they're both perfectly fine with blocking apps for arbitrary reasons citing "app store policy".
Phrased less disingenuously: Private companies are fine making decisions based on their own internal policies, as opposed to blocking certain apps based on nebulous requests/pseudo-demands from the government.
That doesn't quite capture it. I want to buy an app for my phone and a vendor wants to sell it to me. But because my phone is a walled garden, Apple and Google who are third parties to the transaction can step in and prevent it.
The Department of Commerce is saying that the Uniform Commercial Code is also a bit of a walled garden, and we can step in and prevent it.
There are many, many things that are totally legal for private companies to do but the government is implicitly or explicitly prohibited from doing. Freedom of speech (not saying this is an example of that) is probably the prime example.
A company can bar you from saying just about anything. You can be fired for wearing a tie your boss doesn't like (this never happens, but it's legal in 49 states). The government has very narrow parameters in which is can limit speech, or more accurately, punish you for given speech.
I believe they're afraid this will increase the strength of the argument that app stores can be regulated for national causes, which is bad news for their control of their own ecosystem (to a first approximation: government involvement always increases cost). It's also, sort of, bad news for, like, Americans... If a foreign company makes a parody game critical of US politics, can the government use this precedent to get it yanked from app stores?
It's called the free market. Private businesses can make decisions as they see best, and the barrier for government overriding that is extremely high. In America at least, this is traditionally viewed as a good thing.
We also generally believe that making things "purely a money issue" is how to incentivize people to do their best work.
There are countries in the world where it's widely accepted that the government is closely involved in business decisions and does what it thinks is best for the country, and they ask people to be motivated the goals of the country, as determined by the ruling party, not their own profit motive. TikTok is familiar with one of those, in fact.
Exactly, I have no idea why you're being downvoted.
Private companies are supposed to able to follow whatever legal policies they want to in order to compete and make as much money as possible.
In a democracy, the executive branch of the government is not supposed to be able to do whatever it wants arbitrarily. That's why the legal principle of "due process" exists -- it has to follow established rules that don't single out individual people or organizations for arbitrary reasons.
The two issues (banning apps, banning companies) could not be more different in terms of the principles involved.
What good is temporarily banning TikTok if Oracle and Walmart are taking majority ownership?
The user base will see the headlines that it’s being banned and then they’ll move to a rival service again like they did during the first scare. Especially since Triller just poached TikTok’s most popular creator, Charli D’Amelio, earlier this week. That coveted preteen demographic might never come back. It’s poisoning the well for Oracle.
My mistake. I left out the investment firms like Sequoia Capital, General Atlantic and Coatue, which would put majority ownership in U.S. hands. That’s what the Trump administration wants all along anyway.
Why is preteen a coveted demographic for a business? Are you able to point me to something I can read that would explain why a business wants to court what to me seems like a financially handcuffed group? I understand that preteens can influence their guardians into making a purchase for a toy or some other small ticket item, but they're not going to influence big ticket purchases. Or do they?
Armchair perspective: They are an easily impressionable group who will eventually get access to money. Building brand loyalty now could pay dividends in their later years. Plus, children to have a certain influence in what their guardians buy for them in many cases ( consider how profitable Disney's merchandise is).
Yes I thought of that too, but the parent to my question stated that Tiller is already replacing TikTok. Clearly this demographic doesn't have brand loyalty. It's not difficult/costly for them to jump ship from an existing platform to another one. By the time preteens have access to Money TikTok, Tiller and their followers will be replaced at least twice over.
But there are laws, policies, judicial procedures regarding how the US gov. can access that data, specifically a warrant would be required for access to information. Moreover, information is accessed on the basis of some ostensible crime.
Aside from basic censorship of anything and everything, the CCP can use (and does) WeChat information for absolutely whatever purposes it chooses at any time.
If you say something about Hong Kong protests on WeChat - you will be flagged (and censored) and every one of your peers will be flagged as well. Your career, ability to move freely, future job prospects are in jeopardy, let alone the possibility of completely arbitrary imprisoned. There is no 'justice system' to speak of within that framework.
And of course, there are more basic issues of trade - there are zero foreign entities that would be able to operate in China on basic, civil terms. They all have to operate as organs of the state.
The CCP ensures compliance of it's authoritarian policies by having units within private organizations specifically for that purpose. Have a read [1]. It's not a 'conspiracy' it's just how they operate.
There's no way on earth we can allow those types of organizations to operate freely here.
So yes - just as TT and WeChat are banned or changed hands, there should be more action to at least have more transparency on who, what and how the US can access information from FB etc..
This is right at the core of the issue of the globalization of information and it has to be addressed, there's no way around it.
The US government collects data which is arguably not legal to collect, and parallel construction schemes have allowed law enforcement to use data it would otherwise be unable to use.
I'm not defending the CCP's actions, but I think instead of banning specific acts, the US should change policy and guidelines to ban behavior, not specific actors.
I have conflicted feelings about this but I do think that the 'spin' is poor. China doesn't allow Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. behind the great firewall. Why not just say we are blocking their pseudo-government social apps to be at economic/market access parity. It seems accurate and fair. Spinning it as national security, while potentially true (really don't know), seems like an unnecessary narrative.
China banned these apps because they don't follow the Chinese law in regard to sharing data with the government (FB was banned after some protests where they didn't collaborate with the police). It follows that if the US wanted to ban Chinese apps the same way China does, they would need to either 1) prove that TikTok is breaking the current law 2) pass new, stricter, privacy laws so that TikTok cannot operate/be a threat without breaking the law.
Does Chinese law also allow the government to hack into companies when they don't cooperate with government?
" In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google."
Even if a foreign website complies with all of arbitrary rules in China, the government will ban them with no warning and explanation. Sometimes they get restored, but the damage is already done. Even Apple is not immune and ITunes got shut down in China.
Given the arbitrary way in which the CCP laws you mentioned are applied, I don't see any practical difference with the US action. I do agree that the CCP's way gives a better image so that its spokespeople can pretend like they are just upholding the rule of law and hide the reality.
Stooping to China's level by blocking foreign software seems like an admission that the US cannot produce a viable competitor with its much more free market, does it not? If the other side plays dirty, playing dirty ourselves in response seems like a very poor precedent. Restricting the freedom of American citizens to choose a social media app feels like the antithesis of the American free-market ideology, in my opinion.
I'm willing to entertain other ideas, of course, and I'd love to hear any flaws in my logic.
The US can, does, and should act reciprocally. In all markets where there are no restrictions in trade or commerce we treat foreign competitors fairly, as we should. In markets where US companies are not treated fairly, we should reciprocate.
In the case of China, American companies are not treated fairly. We should reciprocate. Otherwise it's a lopsided engagement that will eventually result in Chinese corporate dominance. We can't operate in China, but they can operate in the US? No way.
100% this. It's insane to me that some people don't understand this when I discuss it with them.
Potential market share for chinese company: <population of world>
Potential market share for literally any other company: <population of world - population of china>.
Since <population of china> is ~1.4 Billion, and <population of world> is ~7.8 Billion, how does one not understand that a chinese company has an insane and unfair advantage.
> Potential market share for literally any other company: <population of world - population of china>.
China is one of the largest markets for a very large number of Western companies. If you ever go to China, chances are that the taxi that picks you up will be a Volkswagen, and the planes that take you from one city to the next will be made by Boeing or Airbus. You'll see Starbucks, McDonald's and KFC everywhere, and it's likely you'll stay in a Marriott or Hilton. If you go to the mall, you'll see foreign clothing brands everywhere, and the electronics shops will be filled with devices powered by Intel, Micron, Qualcomm, AMD, Nvidia, etc.
> It's insane to me that some people don't understand this when I discuss it with them.
What I don't get is how people believe that foreign companies don't operate in China. Have these people ever been to China?
Exactly. When the US imposes tariffs on Canadian aluminum, we expect Canada to reciprocate. When China imposes bans on foreign internet service companies, we expect India, the US, and other affected countries to reciprocate.
Failing to reciprocate will merely serve to encourage these bans and lead to a further fragmented internet.
US companies have a massive presence in China, utterly unmatched by the presence of any Chinese company in the US. It now looks more and more like large Chinese tech companies, on the other hand, are de facto banned from the United States. The most egregious case is Huawei, which the US not only banned from its own market, but is actively trying to destroy through sanctions. The US is even threatening foreign companies with sanctions unless they stop doing business with Huawei.
Has China ever done something that drastic to a US company? What $120-billion-revenue, 200k-employee US company has China ever sanctioned out of existence?
The striking thing about this trade war is how little China has retaliated against American companies. China could savage a lot of American tech companies that profit massively off the Chinese market. But the Chinese government appears to hope that the US will come to its senses at some point, and is therefore holding off for the moment.
> Stooping to China's level by blocking foreign software seems like an admission that the US cannot produce a viable competitor with its much more free market, does it not?
I don't understand why this would be a difficult or controversial admission? It's obviously true, and precisely because China is blocking.
It's like I was to take my co-workers and play a soccer match against FC Barcelona, with a special rule added that our opponents cannot leave their side of the field. FC Barcelona would be right to admit they cannot compete in this game, despite being much more skilled players.
The problem with that analogy is that Chinese companies are subject to the same bans as foreign companies. TikTok is not allowed to operate in China.
So, the special rule forbidding the FC Barcelona from leaving their side of the field also prevents the team of you and your co-workers from leaving your side.
There are laws in China that explicitly give Chinese companies an advantage (e.g.
mining is completely off limits to foreign companies) but internet censorship is not one of those. Chinese companies have to deal with all the same bullshit, and foreign companies who do censor (like Apple and Microsoft) are still competing and doing quite well for themselves.
The flaw in your logic is that this is not about competition, it's about the Chinese government having control over the data of mass quantities of American consumers. Picking TikTok as the poster child is a bit arbitrary/capricious, but that doesn't mean there isn't some merit here.
Why should we funnel data from our citizens to hostile foreign adversaries? Additionally, these are adversaries which don't allow any of our major services inside of their repressive firewall.
China's market is about 4x the US market. It's surprising that any of our software has remained competitive this long when competing with companies serving a captive user share 4x the size of ours.
If you are in a fight and the other guy is playing dirty, not playing dirty is a great way to lose faster.
agree in broad principle, but disagree with the details.
do not impose your western values on China, as the one true morally correct way of life. what China chooses to do is their decision; we are in no position to make any moral judgement on it one way or the other. in fact, in many ways "we" are the morally bankrupt ones. "we" have not just voluntarily, but even eagerly exported slavery to China. it's really great because we can claim a high standard for human rights at home, and ignore them over there.
anyway, it is 100% fair for China to close commerce within China to China-controlled or China-owned companies. this is not dirty behavior, not one bit. i'll go so far as to say, how dare you. it is completely within their right. it is also 100% fair for us (USA) to do so, or not, or to be arbitrarily selective about it.
so your comment also is that this is some kind of retaliation, a tit-for-tat. and that it's a competition for revenue. it is neither. it's recognition that China (the state) is collecting very powerful data on US citizens.
like it or not, we are at war with China. this data collection cannot be allowed.
This isn't an episode of Star Trek—we can't just take the "higher road" and expect the plot of reality to give us a win. China's been bullying us in the "app game" for a long time by simply disallowing our software in favor of Chinese competitors. What alternatives do we have other than starting to play hardball with them?
Realpolitik certainly needs to be a central consideration here, but it still seems a dangerous precedent to say "Americans are not allowed to use this app that facilitates 1st amendment rights".
If the problem is improper collection & use of data, we've be much better served by instituting strict privacy laws than ad-hoc bans by fiat. Even from a realpolitik standpoint, such a course of action has less potential for geo-political fallout because it is backed by legal statute rather than individual interpretation each scenario on the grounds of ill-defined "national security" or parity of trade.
Probably because the government doesn't actually have the authority under current international or federal law to ban apps for reasons you listed. Apps exist in that weird "code is speech" space and regulation of them can get very nit-picky.
If the intent is to ban them for the reasons you've listed, this is a disingenuous way to go about it and a court might see through the facade.
Because there's a belief that America's political and economic freedoms make it a better country. If we not only admit that China's authoritarian approach produces better outcomes but also adopt it for ourselves, what is left of America?
China also knows that oppressing an ethnic minority and placing them in forced labor is good for short-term economic success. America did this once, too, also in textiles no less, and concluded the same thing. Shall we go back to it so we can compete with China there too?
That may just be reasonable but I fear that reason has little importance regarding this tiktok matter. It looks like war on drugs from a distance, just layers of BS and misery.
> Spinning it as national security, while potentially true (really don't know)
Do with this as you will, but I as a US citizen was personally impacted by the Chinese government's surveillance despite not being a target of their foreign intelligence operations. A random Chinese kid who was obsessed with forcing me to date him, who who has a politically-connected family in China, used the Chinese government's database against me. Just think how much worse it would be if American citizens were actually targeted by real operations.
This is why app stores and locked platforms such as Apple's are dangerous. Users are going to have difficulty installing banned apps. Sure, wechat and tik tok are basically spyware but this is just the beginning. Pretty soon other apps are going to follow. One day signal might be on the list.
This is why I’ve been supporting Apple and their App Store. It’s the most effective way to isolate an evil, authoritarian regime.
Right now there’s zero reason to believe that the administration would target apps outside of China, and as long as that continue to be the case then we should cheer them on and be grateful we finally have a world leader willing and capable of standing up to China.
They don't. It's absolutely horrifying the extent to which posters even here want to treat this as a legitimate subject worthy of debate. The executive branch, with minimal warning, minimal justification, less than seven weeks out from an election, is just capriciously deciding to ban popular platforms for online interaction. There's no congressional oversight, there's no proposed legislation, it's not even a request to a court. It's just, "poof", you're banned. Of platforms that have hundreds of millions of users in the country!
If that doesn't scare you imagine what your "enemies" might do with that power.
I mean, it's true that I too don't personally don't see much value in these platforms and am genuinely confused by TikTok. But... yikes.
People: this is a disaster. And once that power is uncorked it's not going back in the bottle.
TikTok is one thing, but WeChat is essentially an operating system for everyone in China. I wonder if they will demand WeChat be removed from the App Store everywhere. Given you can't do any commerce, a US company (like Apple) likely cannot comply with this ruling without banning the whole app.
At which point I think China should ban iPhones. You cannot allow a company to sell to your country a product from which your country's most important applications are banned.
Yes, it would be great for the American people if China bans iPhones -- Apple would have less of an economic incentive to follow arbitrary and brutally repressive takedown demands from the CCP government like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19997188
Also, hope the US bans Xiaomi phones for the same reason, since applications like Facebook don't appear in the Mi Store.
Bring the world back to isolation, then what follows? Wars, and destruction of what we have accomplished after the two world wars. Beware of the slippery slope, my friends.
It sickens me to see people using silly rhetorics to rationalize this kind of dangerous moves:
* We are doing this for your security...
* Because C has been bad, we need to do the same BAD things...
* We should attack Q because we believe they are planning something bad...
...
Very disappointed, I thought democracy is better than this. What difference do you make when you adopt the same approach that you criticized?
As far as I know, there are many people in China who once almost believe in democracy and freedom of speech, who managed to get across the Great Fire Wall, end up facing the same Great Trump Wall.
there are already quite some VPN providers in China to provide service to people outside China to get back in, it was mainly for oversea Chinese to consume music/shows only available in China (believe it or not, China now has very strong copyright protection so those content are blocked from outside of China)
but now these VPN service could be used to get around Trump wall
I wonder whether it is possible to build TikTok as a web application so US citizens can use TikTok web application instead of TikTok mobile application? You know, Netflix has a web app and a mobile app.
Of course, I'm aware that US could block the tiktok web URL.
So we would literally install a national firewall to enforce this policy? Regardless of the particulars, the big picture view of this is not pretty. Is there a legal group looking to challenge this yet, like the EFF?
This is disappointing yet expected from the executive.
What's more disappointing is watching the thunderous applause from technologists here and elsewhere as software is outlawed which is not otherwise illegal and is not being litigated as illegal. We should not cheer on the restriction of any software on nationalistic terms. Content is one thing, physical equipment another, but algorithms should be borderless. Most in the community disagree with encryption export restrictions, why can't they similarly disagree with software import restrictions? 2A groups recognize slippery slope precedents, why can't technologists?
If the content/data is being harvested and/or managed illegally, then make that illegal and/or prosecute under that pretense (even if the evidence is subject to national security non-disclosure). Otherwise, it's obvious this is political posturing at the cost of digital freedom. It should be as widely condemned as government surveillance has been.
>why can't they similarly disagree with software import restrictions?
It's easier to verify what a borderless, open algorithm does.
It's a lot harder to do that with packaged software.
Has TikTok posted the source of their app publicly the same as those borderless and open algorithms? Can we verify what we install is the same as that posted source with no changes?
You can ban finished products without banning their constituent parts.
American companies probably do many of the things that Tiktok does, but this is political and that's where the unfairness comes from.
So, if American companies quietly send user data to repressive governments, that's totally fine? What if it was sending voter data to Russian state actors?
If another nation state knows so much about American citizens, and can use that to manipulate, blackmail or
persuade them, if that nation state has indicated hostility towards us ...
Legislation can be drafted to make such data proliferation illegal. That's not what's happening here. This is an end-run around legislature, which executive orders often are, and should be condemned as such. You have to separate the intent/justification (or what you perceive as the desired intent/justification) from the action.
"Where were you when your country first started banning software?"
How many times before have you heard of an app being banned as a preventative measure against blackmail? The grasping at straws to have the ban not reflect poorly on the US and conservatism is getting out of hand.
How is this not a concern with the private entities that already collect this kind of information, and how is this any different than those entities sharing all that with the federal government?
Yet every time this is posted the default response is that China has done worse to US companies, so It's only fair! How do you reply to that? (not asking rhetorically)
US media companies are free to operate in China, provided they follow Chinese media laws that applies to other domestic platforms.
TikTok operates in US under US laws, that's technically fair and reciprocal. If people mean reciprocal in spirit, like joint venture, then TikTok partnering with Oracle and storing data in US server is reciprocal in spirit. You can apply this reciprocal state of exception for all Chinese companies in US, provided JV partners reciprocate in perks (i.e. in China JVs provide massive land and other subsidies). You can even legislate tech transfers for TikTok's algorithm. And for the purpose of trade and commercial entities operating to make a profit that's sufficient.
But I surmise the crux of these bad-faith reciprocal arguments is that US should be able to impose its values on foreign markets, and US companies should be able operate in those markets to spread US values like how Chinese platforms operating under US values can shape US opinions. That's valid, but an that's a conversation well past trade fairness which TikTok has already met.
But this isn't about trade fairness, this & Clean Network is about Chinese containment and US hegemony. And that's also valid. China's going to do what they do, the question people here needs to ask is should America also do what China does.
I think the US passing legislation that requires foreign companies to transfer their technology (or worse, copying brutally repressive CCP laws on media) would be far far far more damaging than surgically banning companies from specific countries under a reciprocal reaction.
Media laws would be progressive data protections, just evenly applied. But we know why that's not on the table. Tech transfer + JV only for countries that require it, i.e. reciprocal. Same with property, company, asset ownership which that bothers a lot of people. The point is there are reciprocal options for reciprocal advocates. But reading a lot of these reciprocal arguments, they look like a dogwhistle for containment, which is fine. Policy making circles discuss containment openly. Just be upfront about it and stop pretending it's about fairness. And try not to let reeeee China undermine longterm self-interests. Which this act seems to do.
It's easy to see how this sets precedence. Which is terrifying for the global economy when a protectionist president who swings executive orders around the way he does is in power.
Any company who has lots of data (every tech company) that is successful can easily fall victim to this.
It's also disappointing that Biden apparently has no opinion on this issue?
You would think that this ban would be a topic in the election but as far as I can tell democrats are fully onboard with the whole "china bad" thing and restricting social media.
I disagree. They’ve done a lot of economic damage to China (besides war then it’s probably the best way we have to combat the CCP), and they’ve forced companies to move their manufacturing out of China. Even high-end tech stuff like the iPhone is starting to get assembled outside of China.
In response to the tariffs, China also ended their domestic ownership rules (requiring 50% ownership by Chinese companies) for auto companies and financial institutions.
I think the people that expected this to happen are the same people who thought he’d succeed in building the wall. Although it probably has accelerated the need for automated manufacturing capabilities.
I’m sure there are many who believed this, but I’m also sure there are many like me who supported it solely because it would hurt China, knowing full well that the companies would just move their manufacturing to Vietnam, India, Mexico, etc.
The entire world gains if the CCP collapse. If we weren’t willing to make sacrifices then Nazi Germany would likely be the world’s superpower today.
I personally think it’s better to make financial sacrifices now and try to isolate China from the rest of the world, instead of waiting for them to do to Taiwan, Laos, Thailand, Japan, etc. as they have done to Mongolia, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, etc.
Biden said last night that China is a 'competitor' and Russia is an 'opponent'. Not sure that makes him pro-China. It's possible he thinks breaking all ties and increasing tariffs are the wrong way to go about dealing with China.
Tariffs may look good in the short term, but China thinks long term. They only have to wait 4 years, and they can probably get EOs/tariffs changed or rolled back. Long term changes happen from deepening Chinese relationships and passing laws.
I often hear people wonder how Biden would deal with China - to those I say look at what he and Obama accomplished (with regard to China) during their 8 years, and you’ll have your answer.
Passing laws can also easily be overturned and ignored, and usually amount to nothing because the process is so slow.
Trump’s actions (and China’s reactions) have rightfully turned CCP’s into the worlds greatest enemy. It’s not just the tariffs that will force companies to leave China (and they’re unlikely to return once they’ve set up base elsewhere, and once India, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc. establish manufacturing hubs capable of assembling high tech), you also have Huawei not being allowed to use Android and chips with US tech (which will basically kill their phones) and being blocked from building 5G networks (even paying other nations to block them as well), China Mobile being blocked from offering services in US, HK special status being revoked, pushing for China to lose their WTO developing country status, continuously reminding the world that China are responsible for the Wuhan virus. Trump also managed to force Universal Postal Union to allow countries to raise postal rates (something China have been abusing, forcing other countries to cover shipping costs for cheap junk brought on aliexpress), his administration also requested Meng Wanzhou’s arrest in Canada which resulted in China arbitrarily arresting Canadian citizens, he was the US President to speak directly with Taiwan’s President since 1979, he made the largest arms sale to Taiwan in the past few decades, TAIPEI Act and Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act was signed under his administration, and he’s now banning TikTok and WeChat.. I could probably find many more things to add to the list, but my point is that unlike previous administrations (and other countries), he’s actually doing something meaningful to stand up to China.
This is a national security issue and I doubt it will change under a Democratic administration. We do not want Chinese control of our payments, nor do we want the amount of surveillance that implies being in the hands of any foreign government... let alone an increasingly totalitarian one with camps, slave labor, and many other alarming human rights abuses.
Think Russian election meddling was bad in 2016? It was amateur hour, basically just memes and bots and on the level of what a determined 4chan mob can accomplish. China armed with deep social graph data could completely own an election. They are better financed and smarter.
I think this ban is kinda dumb, but I also don't understand why algorithms should be borderless and free from regulation? What makes software so special?
Yes, however, whether the harvesting of content and data is illegal or not, it occurs. The US has no power over Chinese firms by just "making it illegal", as numerous examples have shown in the past - especially if these firms are controlled by the CCP.
It's not that American firms don't act equally despicable with our private data, it's simply that the US has the ability to punish them.
The CCP is obviously doing the same thing, which is why the majority of comparable products to these services is not allowed in China.
I envy the naivete required to believe that the U.S. government's chief intent in this case is to maintain the ability to police bad actors who might abuse this data, and not to ensure it has total control to use the data for its own (often nefarious) ends.
There's a reason it's the commerce department doing these things. We do not have strong legal frameworks around data privacy (we should but that's a different battle). We do have controls for foreign entities who recklessly abuse our system and this is that control.
If you're going to abuse privacy law, vacuum up PII and behaviorals, and send them to a foreign government database used for blackmail[1] then yes, we're going to freeze your transactions and tell you off.
This is upside down - it ignores the reality of what is happening.
WeChat in particular is de-facto a tool of the CCP, it's a giant information gathering and control apparatus that is used to serve the organs of CCP authoritarianism.
It's 'disappointing' that people don't seem to understand the nature of these systems.
If you dare to 'say the wrong thing' on WeChat - you risk your life and career to arbitrary detainment and punishment. If you speak out on HK protests on WeChat, you may very well never be able to enter the country, and your peers will be flagged.
Here's some research [1]
WeChat censorship [2]
Here's is Amnesty International's view of WeChat Tencent - literally 0/100 score for 'privacy'. [3]
The CCP implants state organs into every company in China, a 'private controlling entity' to ensure the board, executives comply with state directives [4]
From the Guardian: "One recent survey by the Central Organisation Department, the party’s personnel body, found that 68% of China’s private companies had party bodies by 2016, and 70% of foreign enterprises. Although these figures sound high, they don’t match the targets the party has set for itself. In Xi’s old stamping ground of Zhejiang, for example, officials set a target in August 2018 to have cells inside 95% of private businesses." [5]
Tencent/WeChat, possibly TikTok - they are under the control of the CCP and far from being any kind of source of 'freedom' - they are 'enemy number 1' in creating a dystopian nightmare.
The actions against Tencent/Bytedance should not be arbitrary edicts from the White House - issues need to be codified in law, or in terms of trade policy, and then applied fairly and objectively, but the outcome is appropriate.
Good post, good info. You're either being downvoted by CCP bots, or by people who want to continue to believe there's some equivalence b/t a constitutional democracy and an authoritarian dictatorship.
This whole thing shows the extent to which the powers that be consider social media not as some free-formed independent part of the economy, but rather as an essential tool for surveillance, which is crucial to the intelligence infrastructure of the country. When you view it through that lens it becomes obvious why the U.S. government will not allow a foreign power to gain a major foothold in it with something like TikTok.
Each of the major empires (US, China, Russia) will create their own walled ecosystems for harvesting and cataloging data about their populace, and will fiercely resist any attempts by the others to gain a purchase.
So far, the primary country that has developed its own fragmented internet is China. The response from India, the US, and others merely represents a reciprocal retaliation to the CCP's arbitrary bans on foreign internet service companies, just as Canada retaliated to US-imposed aluminum tariffs with its own tariffs.
Until countries begin imposing these types of bans in a non-reciprocal fashion (i.e., targeting countries other than China), there is no reason to believe that the internet will become further fragmented outside of China. Furthermore, the main goal of reciprocal retaliation is to discourage the original activity, so if anything, reciprocal actions by India and the US will prevent further fragmentation of the internet.
Arguing that the US should not engage in these actions is like arguing that Canada should not respond to US-imposed tariffs with its own tariffs on US goods. Failing to reciprocate would lead to more tariffs, not less.
"Any provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S."
So basically Apple users are screwed because of their strict control of their OS, but Android users will be fine, because you can just go to http://www.wechat.com/ and hit "Direct Download" and bypass the Google Play store entirely.
>why can't they similarly disagree with software import restrictions?
The argument for import restrictions is giving up control to foreign governments.
For example, Europe is in a very rough spot because their countries run on software built by US companies, subject to the whims of US law enforcement.
The biggest threat being 3 letter agencies. The CIA does a lot of spying on behalf of US corporations to drive US corporate interests. [0]
The US army banned Tik Tok from service member phones because of the risk of leaking data on troop movement, sensitive communication on the device outside of Tik Tok, etc [1]
This is absolutely true, and I hope my OP didn't infer they didn't.
The critical difference is US companies own Europe's communication infrastructure (Windows, Office 365, GSuite, Azure, AWS, Slack, etc), and not the other way around.
Problem is, the US government does not own US companies.
After the Snowden leaks, for example, Google did a lot of hardening to its servers i.e. ensure all of its internal traffic is encrypted.
If you have evidence that Microsoft, Amazon and Google are totally willing to forgo the security and privacy interests of their customers in favor of pleasing the US Government, please, present some evidence for it. I'm eager to read it.
The first is Microsoft opposing an effort by the US government to force it to hand over information stored on servers physically outside the US. Which proves my point.
The second is an FAQ by the EFF about National Security Letters. These are times when the government covertly forces American companies to hand over information. Which is stupid. But it has nothing to do with the fact that US companies control certain parts of IT infrastructure in Europe. You don't think Siemens and DeutcheTelekom turn over information to the German government?
The third one is a totally unrelated story about Edward Snowden's e-mail service. Not sure what that has to do with anything. What company would want to host his email? He's a walking target for state adversaries.
So again, if you have links that prove your point, please post them -- but these do not even come close.
I can't agree with you as the Chinese government doesn't seem to be willing to recognize the USA's ability to control data on it's own citizens just like in all other countries have the option to do. China is clearly becoming a hostile authoritarian regime that would love to have all the data it can on the leaders of tomorrow. Blackmail data in particular. There is no clear path right now for TicToc to block that data from heading overseas and it doesn't seem to be taking the USA seriously on the matter. No one cares about their algorithm, that is proprietary and welcome to stay there in China. I agree that the USA should be more forthcoming on whether or not they have real evidence on data harvesting on Americans, I would like to see that happen.
> If the content/data is being harvested and/or managed illegally, then make that illegal and/or prosecute under that pretense (even if the evidence is subject to national security non-disclosure). Otherwise, it's obvious this is political posturing at the cost of digital freedom. It should be as widely condemned as government surveillance has been.
A telling quote comes to us from the Commerce Secretary, via reporting by the New York Times:
"""What they collect are data on locality, data on what you are streaming toward, what your preferences are, what you are referencing, every bit of behavior that the American side is indulging in becomes available to whoever is watching on the other side."""
Well, shit. If that's the concern, I hope nobody's told them about blogs, YouTube, or the Internet.
Of course, that's not the concern, the concern is that they don't get that data, somebody else does. It's pure hypocrisy. They could have done the right thing by passing sweeping privacy laws that every company would be subjected to, but in reality the goal is to maintain the monopoly of the USG on espionage.
I think the real concern is that social networks can be used for mass political opinion manipulation. Algorithmic recommendations and deplatforming have become political battlegrounds and the power of the social media companies is recognized more and more as being immense.
> I think the real concern is that social networks can be used for mass political opinion manipulation
Again, the concern is not that that is happening, but that it's happening by people not under control of the US elite. The hyper-partisan news organisations of the US engage in "opinion manipulation" just fine, as does Facebook.
Correct. The difference between Facebook and Tiktok is who can apply pressure and in what ways. For example many people believe that Trump's antitrust moves against Google are also political, different situation different techniques but same goal, a battle over the control of social networks.
"but that it's happening by people not under control of the US elite"
Wow, no. This is not it.
Facebook is not interested in influencing the outcomes of elections, and the US Gov is not using FB to do so directly - other than to ban egregious misinformation and to allow any legit actor to participate.
WeChat/TikTok are organs of the state - they can and are used at will by CCP organs for censorship, control, monitoring etc. - for any reason, at any time, at any whim.
The moral equivalence arguments being made are simply out of touch with the operational realities of companies in the China vs. US/Europe etc..
If that was the case Facebook would be banned as well, it’s just another grift as usual. He even explicitly said that a US company could buy it as long as the federal gov got a cut of the sale: pure grift.
Second - Trump's indicating that 'the US should get a cut' is just ridiculous and bizarre. He's not getting a cut, so it's not really 'graft' - but it just plays into his deal-making instinct that the US 'is a player and ought to get a piece'. He's just blatantly ignorant. There is 0% chance of this happening, there are 0 people in his circle that would ever conceive of such a thing, it's just one of those 'Trump things' they smile and ignore.
Trump doesn't want another social network that he cannot control. Tiktok's young user are not his base. He wants to silence them. It's censorship of free speech right before the election. It is impeachable.
No the concern is they aren't subject to the laws of our land, and thus can get away with it. No one can hold China accountable, or at least none of our leaders have shown they will. Case in point: China continues to remain relatively unscathed from committing genocide against the Uighurs.
=> "NICOLÁS MARUGÁN, Committee Rapporteur for China, congratulated China for creating extraordinary prosperity and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the past 30 to 40 years",
"VERENE SHEPHERD, Committee Co-Rapporteur for China, recognized China’s vigorous efforts to promote education among ethnic minorities, as well as the education on ethnic unity in the country",
"GUN KUT, Committee Rapporteur for Follow-up to Concluding Observations, commended China for the timely provision of the follow-up report to the Committee’s concluding observations issued after the 2009 review".
OK...
GAY MCDOUGALL, Committee Co-Rapporteur for China, raised concern about the numerous and credible reports that in the name of combatting “religious extremism” and maintaining “social stability”, the State party had turned the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region into something that resembled a massive internment camp shrouded in secrecy, a “no rights zone”"
"A spokesperson from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) confirmed in a statement to The Grayzone that the allegation of Chinese “camps” was not made by the United Nations, but rather by a member of an independent committee that does not speak for the UN as a whole. That member happened to be the only American on the committee, and one with no background of scholarship or research on China."
=> It is believed that up to a million Uighur people have been detained over the past few years in what the Chinese state defines as "re-education camps".
I assume you're being pedantic, because the answer to your question is obvious, but I'll explain what he meant anyway. Once the data is in China, in the hands of the Chinese government, their use of it might theoretically still be "subject" to US law, but as a practical matter, nobody could do anything to stop them from doing anything they wanted with it.
I was just explaining the poster's point. Personally, I think that most data produced/collected by social networking applications is worthless. All of these draconian privacy laws that have been passed, in my opinion, are nothing more than political theater and make little to no difference to 99.99% of the population. GDPR, for example, has produced nothing more than lots of annoying popups that nobody pays attention to, and billions of dollars in fees for compliance consultants. I can understand the government banning people that have security clearances from using certain apps, but blanket banning an app seems like an overreach.
No one can hold anyone major state accountable for anything. If you're arguing that we should stop trade with all major sovereign nations, that's pretty much exactly what I'm addressing, it's a question of the US training to maintain hegemony.
Case in point : the murder of 3 million innocents and displacement of 37 million due to US imperialism in the last 30 years.
If this was about holding people accountable for atrocities, then the logical and easiest place to start is at home. Instead, we have the Hague Invasion act.
This has nothing to do with Uighur genocide. The is absolutely not some political pressure to get China to stop, or even let in UN auditors. Holding China accountable does not mean just randomly banning products.
Someone from UN counter terrorism went and met some Chinese diplomats. The statement mentioning they "reached consensus" is not even clear about what the consensus is about.
There is no concern about the data. Trump got trolled by TikTok users who RSVPed to his Tulsa rally. That's the entire reason, full stop. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with TikTok's business practices.
It's not just a ban on import, but also a ban on execution! It's insane overreach.
The government should have the power to manage armies, fiscal policies, and so on, but giving the State the power to decide which algorithms I should be allowed to run on my own computer is insane.
Its not even that, Pompeo already talked about a quasi US version of the great firewall called the Clean network.
Its kinda weird seeing the US being afraid of competition. Kinda had hoped that the scenario Kai Fu Lee wrote about in his book "AI superpowers" wouldn't happen that the tech world would bifurcate into the East vs the West.
Eh I don’t think the US is afraid of competition, but what competition exactly? Chinese companies can freely operate in the US, but American companies can’t freely operate in China? Obviously that isn’t going to go on forever. None of this would be happening if Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. we’re allowed to operate in China like TikTok is/was allowed to operate in the US.
Chinese companies can operate in America as long as they follow American laws, likewise American companies can operate in China as long as they follow Chinese laws. Since America is a freer society that China, it follows that Chinese companies are more free to operate in America. The solution is obviously not to make America less free, but that's the path they've been going down for the past 20 years so no big surprise. If the American government were concerned about their citizens privacy they would have passed stricter privacy regulations and only then banned companies that didn't comply.
> Chinese companies can operate in America as long as they follow American laws, likewise American companies can operate in China as long as they follow Chinese laws.
Are you sure? What law does Youtube and Twitter need to follow to be allowed to operate in China?
> The solution is obviously not to make America less free
I don't view banning TikTok and WeChat as making America less free. We can just make our own. And we're only doing this to China and it's deserved.
> If the American government were concerned about their citizens privacy they would have passed stricter privacy regulations and only then banned companies that didn't comply.
Well, that's the wrong phrasing. If American citizens were concerned they would make their government pass stricter privacy regulations. But I don't believe that this is mutually exclusive to also banning Chinese companies due to other reasons as highlighted above.
> I don't view banning TikTok and WeChat as making America less free. We can just make our own. And we're only doing this to China and it's deserved.
If an American on US soil wants to watch videos on TikTok, and the American government says "sorry, we've decided you can't view that, contrary to your own wishes" then Americans are less free.
PS: "China" isn't a person and you shouldn't personify groups of millions of people.
They probably should have used CCP but it’s pretty clear they are talking about the Chinese government and not Chinese people. America isn’t a person but you had no problem with its use?
> Are you sure? What law does Youtube and Twitter need to follow to be allowed to operate in China?
They need to start censoring content based on the Chinese government direction. That's what Microsoft, Apple are doing.
> I don't view banning TikTok and WeChat as making America less free. We can just make our own. And we're only doing this to China and it's deserved.
The government arbitrarily deciding what you can and cannot run on your smartphone is a limitation of your freedom.
> But I don't believe that this is mutually exclusive to also banning Chinese companies due to other reasons as highlighted above.
The official reason is that these two apps are spying on US citizens, so stricter privacy laws would prevent them (and other popular apps like FB, Google, Twitter, etc. so it would be an even bigger win for the people) from doing so.
It's more nuanced than that. The government decided that a population with access to grenade launchers is bad and so they banned all grenade launchers. The law to ban this type of weapons was also approved by the Congress and was not an executive order.
As I said, if Congress passed strict privacy laws that resulted in the ban of TikTok then there would be virtually no outcries.
I think the mistake you're making here is assuming that the United States can only apply blanket policies to all countries and can't treat individual countries differently.
Your aggregation view isn't correct in practical terms. The government (with the consent of the voters, I need to keep stressing that) decided that grenade launchers should be banned, but they didn't decide that all firearms or weapons should be banned. You can clearly see how you can pick and choose categories or different aggregation levels to take specific action on.
It's like, you ban grenade launchers because you don't like the potential harmful effects. You ban Chinese companies because you don't like how the Chinese government treats your country. I think it's pretty straightforward generally speaking. We wouldn't be here if China allowed free reign for US companies to operate in China as we have for a long time allowed Chinese companies to operate in the US. We even only ask that Chinese researchers disclose their military affiliation. In China do you think they'd let US military officers work at top research universities in China? Why wouldn't they? Why should the US?
> They need to start censoring content based on the Chinese government direction. That's what Microsoft, Apple are doing.
This is overly simplistic and there are a number of additional regulations in place. For example, Netflix (even if they censor) cannot enter China without partnering with a Chinese company because they cannot get a media license [1]
> American companies can’t freely operate in China
McDonald's, Nike, Boeing, Microsoft, P&G, General Electric (to name just a few) all hold dominant market share in China. I have no idea why people constantly repeat this claim so easily debunked. US companies are everywhere in the country and making billions.
The US trade relationship with China is much larger than social media companies (Apple, Micron, Qualcomm and plenty of other tech companies have no problem in China - what we're talking about here are media companiesm not tech companies in general). By focusing only on media companies, people in this conversation are getting a very narrow and distorted view of the US-China trade relationship. The US does very well, business-wise, in China, contrary to what most Americans seem to believe.
That's "cleary" not what the grandparent comment was alluding to nor did they once mention tech.
Regardless of the ever shifting goalposts of those who constantly make this patently false statement about US companies inability to do business on the mainland, let's just restrict it to tech then:
I already mentioned Microsoft, how about Apple? Intel? IBM, Dell, HP? They all make huge dollars in China as well as benefit from their supply chains to sell elsewhere.
I really can't understand why people mentally cling so hard to this notion that US companies can't sell their wares to the Chinese.
Those are exceptions due to scale (and likely bribes to the CCP). If you go as a small/business business person to start a business in China, you absolutely will have to take on a Chinese partner with 51% controlling ownership in the company. They make only very very rare exceptions to that. Then they turn around and say the USA is "unfair".
I think that's not what's going on here. I think it's one of two things:
1. USA has real intel on China harvesting data to Chinese servers on WeChat and TikTOk and they're filing it away for combing through for weakpoints like blackmail, potential dissidents, contacts in the USA to compromise.
2. Trump is just mad at China and it's a way to get a lot of publicity to show he's tough on them (while meekly staying hushed about Russian interference)
I'm really confused about why the adminstration is doing this right before the election, seems like annoying a bunch of young people is a great way to get out the democratic vote.
In situations where definitive proof of any clear reason does not exist we are left with the facts presented to us and probabilities.
Again...this has nothing to do with politics. I am merely looking at things from the view of an outside observer.
There are many more valid reasons to limit Chinese influence and "data gathering" but they are largely (at this point) being ignored. This does not begin to dip into the actual "political" reasons both countries involved have going on.
There may be no definitive proof, but it's not nonsense. Trump has made clear on many occasions that whether or not a group supports him is always on his mind. He's made clear he would ban Twitter if he had some legal cover to make it seem legitimate.
From a policy perspective, the states HAS to say this.
Wisdom of the particular policy aside, once a country makes a really bold demand - "do X or we'll do Y" - they can't back down without losing a tremendous amount of credibility. If you don't follow through on your threats, they're meaningless; if your threats aren't meaningful, only action is. Action is more expensive, so it costs you more to accomplish a goal, so you can accomplish less.
I happen to think this particular policy is unwise (dude, you need allies, and you think Europe won't help you regulate tech? C'mon), but the US has committed. Barring judicial intervention, it would be more unwise to back down now.
Well I guess it’s a good thing we didn’t back down on building a wall and making Mexico pay for it by that logic. /s
I don’t think this reasoning makes sense. Wouldn’t it be better for the US to back down, showing that we are judicial and fair country that doesn’t lash out in petty ways? Trump makes insane claims all the time; no one would take any notice if he didn’t follow through on this one either.
"""While the threats posed by WeChat and TikTok are not identical, they are similar. Each collects vast swaths of data from users, including network activity, location data, and browsing and search histories. Each is an active participant in China’s civil-military fusion and is subject to mandatory cooperation with the intelligence services of the CCP."""
It's funny that they're saying that like Room 641A isn't public knowledge.
Of course, when it's the NSA cloning data out of AT&T to spy for Uncle Sam, it's the good spying. ;)
US megacorps are not de jure organs of the state in the same way as the Chinese megacorps. That is, it is seen as more acceptable to have corporate dominance of society than it is to have government-directed and controlled corporate dominance of society.
The two systems are not the same, ideologically and in function and methods. It's fair to think they are equally evil, of course.
As an European, I'd rather have no foreign government collect data about me. Legislation like the CLOUD Act should get more backslash from European leaders.
In the spectrum of "evil", I'd rather an NSA run by American citizens to have my data than the Chinese government. I can, in theory, at least elect representatives to change the policies of the NSA. I have no such power over China, and China is actively censoring and repressing citizens who even mildly criticize the state.
Europeans are free to say the same, or negotiate acceptable GDPR-style data protection standards with the countries that receive their data (which in many cases has already happened).
EU have already ordered Facebook (and others) to restrict data sent from EU to US. If US started banning EU tech companies (like China are doing) then it would of course make sense for EU to do the same to US tech companies.
This is of course unlikely to happen as EU and US fairly operate in the free market.
I'm the opposite. I'd rather China have my data then the NSA.
China has less incentive to go after me, and what are they gonna do to me? It's not like the United States will extradite their own citizens to China or anything like that.
The United States could easily use my data to come after me at some point, if they decide to. They could make my political viewpoints illegal (like the McCarthy Era) and find evidence of my views from my data and throw me in jail or worse.
Same as all of the accusation of 'shills' that points to whoever post anything that can be remotely construed as 'pro-China'
Seriously, I don't think CCP cares about you enough to pay people who write good English (not so easy to find in China, surprise!) to try to influence your opinion on an online forum.
I don't think CCP cares about you enough to pay people who write good English (not so easy to find in China, surprise!) to try to influence your opinion on an online forum.
It's not a theory, it's been documented. I believe the New York Times was the most recent publication to run an article about it.
Look at it from a different angle of giving data to China gives them more power and reduces the power of the US. It may not matter a ton in your lifetime, but maybe your kids will see China as the world superpower, imposing its value system onto the world. I'd prefer the US remain the top dog because while not perfect, I like the value system of the US more than I do China.
Eh. There’s a long list of moral bankruptcy even before trump. We operate literal concentration camps for children here and I don’t see these breathless articles in the international press about that.
China's already a world superpower imposing its value system onto the world.
You beat that by having a better value system, and in theory, The value system in the United States is one of freedom of speech and association. If the government has to tell Americans that they can't use a particular messaging system, it's going against that value system. Does one's value system win if one compromised it to get there?
Maybe we should look into things like being able to manufacture frickin masks 8 months into a pandemic, then we can double back and worry about kneecapping rivals.
Here's a scenario: You get into elected office, or you get a job working with sensitive information. You don't think it's even remotely possible that you could be blackmailed?
TikTok doesn't add anything to the dataset that's already out there. Nearly every US citizen worth blackmailing has already had their data stolen by foreign actors because of lax security controls. Also, people put up plenty of blackmail worthy material in public as it is. Foreign actors who want to blackmail people could not have purpose built a tool better than Facebook.
> China has less incentive to go after me, and what are they gonna do to me?
The Chinese government itself need not come after you. Anyone with access to their database (e.g. family members of politically-connected party members) can use it against you, which is what happened to me.
>China has less incentive to go after me, and what are they gonna do to me?
This is oblivious to what's actually happening. It's quite clear that the CCP's objective is to extend their internal thought controls globally, by any means available - economic extortion, blackmail, bribes, etc. Just because you don't live in China doesn't mean you're safe from this.
One recent example is using economic extortion to prevent NBA managers from criticizing the regime. They do that kind of thing publicly and privately all over the world.
CCP is gathering data on everyone in the world into a giant training database for their AI, which they'll then use to discover and target people for further thought control - politicians, citizens in positions of influence, etc. If not opposed, it will create an incredible chilling effect on free speech throughout the world.
In the West, not only can we elect reps to change laws to protect us from this, we have a mostly independent judiciary to strike down unconstitutional laws or to hold organs of the state like NSA and CIA accountable. CCP has none of that - no free elections, and their courts are an organ of the CCP, not independent.
If the world doesn't push back on this hard right now, it will only get much worse. How many times do we have to learn not to appease authoritarians? They see appeasement as weakness, and it only emboldens them.
Instead, the CCP can say "it'd be a shame if the US authorities found out what you're doing, but if you share some of your company's confidential documents with us then we won't tell."
What CCP can collect through apps like TikTok cannot even remotely be compared to what US Government knows about you if you are using Google Mail, Google Maps (collects your location data), Android, Facebook etc.
you think tiktok does not/can not collect your location data? You think all groups of people are equally trustworthy? You think it's better to have to trust more groups of people rather than fewer?
> I can, in theory, at least elect representatives to change the policies of the NSA
Please let me know which representatives have 'reducing power and increasing accountability of the NSA' as part of their running platform in the upcoming election so I know who to vote for. I'll even compromise with 'bring back net neutrality', 'use of encryption as a universal right', or GDRP-level protections of consumer data.
The difference here is that US users' data is (allegedly) being collected by a non-US entity. That's not a good thing either. If I were to pick between US collecting my info, or China, I guess I'd go with US... but that's picking the lesser of the 2 evils?
The NSA can’t even be held accountable for what they’re doing or spending. They power secret police operations here and I’m supposed to be afraid of Xi knowing what TikTok videos I spend time looking at? Get real.
I mean these are separate issues and should be discussed on their own. The NSA spying is not good but that doesn't mean the US goverment is not allowed to go ahead with banning Tiktok.
Hell, if you can recognize something of the current USA goverment it is the effectiveness of their foreign policy. China is the remaining elephant in the room
Can Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Google Chat, Slack, Discord, and others operate freely in China?
If the answer to that question is no, then we should treat Chinese apps the exact same way that China treats American apps. Otherwise we're just getting hilariously abused.
Edit: It's called reciprocity. The US can operate a free market and trade with other countries that also operate free markets. We cannot, and should not, allow the US free market to be abused by foreign governments. If China does not want American companies to operate in China the US should reciprocate. Otherwise we're just being taken advantage of. It's not a violation of American free market principles. Just look at the whole fiasco with AirBus subsidies. The US should only engage with foreign governments that respect free trade.
This is a cost of liberty, as is disagreeable speech, anti-government literature, etc. Opponents of those have long cried "we're getting abused" to stifle such things.
One hopes your attitude towards reciprocity stops at software. "we should treat Chinese [NOUN] the exact same way that China treats American [NOUN]" is a scary Mad Lib.
Not sure I agree with this. Intolerance of intolerance is a hallmark of a tolerant society, and we see it everywhere with bans against inciteful speech — if we're to use that example.
If China and other governments are intolerant of our content, code, and signals, why should we be tolerant of theirs?
Then why did was offshoring to an intolerant regime was seen as legitimate since the 90s? Only when it started to hurt a few deep american pockets was this talk about intolerant regime became an issue.
> Not sure I agree with this. Intolerance of intolerance is a hallmark of a tolerant society, and we see it everywhere with bans against inciteful speech — if we're to use that example.
The same can be applied to software and algorithms. These cannot be allowed to perpetuate evil practices in the name of liberty.[1] I don't see a problem when apps doing that get banned. Though I do understand that people will differ on how to do that.
This is a misapplication of Popper's tolerance paradox. You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals".
> You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals".
Took me a few reads to understand your point of contention, but I'm pretty sure I described it accurately. Their intolerance of our products over whatever concerns they have justifies our intolerance of their products for the same.
We-Chat and TikTok are without argument tools of an oppressive regime and therefore constitute intolerance one needs not tolerate, both conceptually and as products.
Is the USA the right regime to morally champion this cause? It the real reason for these bans even remotely associated with this moral objective? I'll leave that up to the reader.
But: with what's happening at the behest of the people who ultimately and directly control the censorship and data of these applications, there is no further difficulty in applying "intolerance to intolerance" in this case.
I think we should spell out our trade policies and not have them be at the whim of the executive branch to do whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like, while trying to extort a cut of the profits.
Also - WeChat is a legit threat even outside the bounds of security.
Game Theory:
'True Free Trade' - everyone gets 10 points
'All Borders Closed' - everyone gets 0 points
'One side opens, one side closed' - the closed side gets 20 points, the open side 5
Somewhat like a prisoner's dilemma.
Finally - there is hardly an argument to be made with 'open' or 'freedom' on platforms that are completely controlled, censored, used as tools of suppression and authoritarianism.
The entire democratic world should take this exact same approach toward China. Democratic nations have free markets and free trade agreements. If China wants to be an isolationist with their own internal economy and their own internal corporations, that is fine. But then they should not also be able to participate in global trade with other free market economies.
We're not emulating China, we're reciprocating their behavior exclusively with regard to China. We don't ban German, Japanese, Korean, or companies from other nations from operating in the US, do we? No.
Sure, Nike can sell them shoes, but anything which involves free expression is certainly not welcome. So, in practice, many technology and social media companies are effectively banned.
Uber is not banned from China. They had a large business in China, but they faced strong competition from Didi. They ended up selling their operations to Didi in exchange for a stake in the Didi.
The companies that are banned in China are the companies that do not agree to censor political content. That's where you get Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. not being able to operate in China.
Western companies have a massive presence in China - far greater than the presence that Chinese companies have in the West. The top three auto brands in China are Volkswagen, Honda and Toyota. China is the world's 2nd largest aviation market, and Boeing and Airbus dominate the Chinese market. American restaurants, such as Starbucks, McDonald's and KFC, are everywhere in China. Chinese malls are filled with American, European and Japanese brands. Up until the trade war began, most Chinese people strongly preferred foreign brands like Apple - though I think this is changing, due to the hounding of companies like Huawei and TikTok by the US government.
The strange thing is that most Westerners believe that China shuts out foreign companies, and it's difficult to even begin to express just how wrong that impression is. China's development was driven by foreign capital - to a large extent meaning foreign companies entering China either to manufacture there or to sell to Chinese consumers. As a result, foreign companies have a huge presence in China.
The CCP priority has never been capitalism or the free market. It has always been China.
They allowed foreign companies in the 90s to operate in China but in partnership with the Chinese thus foreign companies were literally training their own future replacement.
Foreign companies only saw short term $€¥ signs as always. Fast forward to today and there is very little Chinese market left for foreign companies to conquer.
I find it difficult to hate the Chinese for not repeating the mistakes of the 19th century and playing it smart.
Well we clearly aren’t, there is no history to suggest that we are, and whoever told you otherwise lied to you through their teeth or was just as gullible.
“But at least we can talk about it, therefore we can deflect any issue with our comfortable imagination of consequence free speech instead of actually pointing out the egregious history of oppression, extrajudicial execution, judicial execution, periodic and ongoing forced sterilization, cultural genocide, actual genocide, censorship, concentrated power in archaic ways, wait which country are we talking about? but we can talk about it so we are better by a standard that nobody else cares about except us!”
Why should we emulate the policies of another country if we agree that those policies are wrong and/or harmful? That seems like the exact opposite of what we should do: lead by example by showing how a society without such restriction is better off.
You can't both say "china is wrong in its policies so it's eye for an eye" AND "it's a good policy".
What you're saying there in this reply is essentially that every country should just close itself off to the rest of the world and operate on its own technologically. I don't believe this is a point of you held by the majority, not even would I believe you if you told me you hold this view (since I've seen your posts before and I don't think this is something you think).
I hold the view that some nationalistic policies are in the best interest of the United States, and I communicate this in writing to policy makers I interface with.
You know that's the political equivalent of saying "I hold the view that it's good that other people have to give me stuff and I don't have to give anything back"?
Most negotiations in life are obtaining as much of what you desire with providing as little in return possible. If you don't have your own interests at heart, no one else will. How you approach geopolitical interactions with each country is going to vary, but that's the gist. With that said, I believe we have differing belief systems, and nothing productive will come from continuing the discussion. I expressed my viewpoint to demonstrate it exists (which is a contrarian view in the HN echo chamber).
EDIT: (throttled by HN, can't reply to below comment)
> what are you doing regularly posting (in dissent) in a community that, in your own words, holds a globally contrarian view to yours?
I enjoy the interactions and discussions. I'm not winning hearts and minds but I don't pretend it matters.
If you believe that two people with different belief systems discussing can't achieve anything, what are you doing regularly posting (in dissent) in a community that, in your own words, holds a globally contrarian view to yours?
Also I'm not necessarily shooting down the policy, truthfully it's one of those things where I don't feel comfortable having an opinion because it's such a complex subject. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of this attitude, treating every other country on earth like dirt and being all pikachu-shocked-face when it happens to you.
Maybe it's a contrarian attitude here because most of the non-US world is sick of this american exclusionism bullshit. I sure am.
The policies are harmful, and reciprocal policies are good policies. I don't think this is inconsistent. It's just like how US imposing tariffs on Canadian aluminum is harmful, but Canada reciprocating with its own tariffs is definitely good policy -- otherwise there would be no economic incentive for the US to stop its tariffs.
Canada reciprocating protects the free flow of trade by discouraging further tariffs. Similarly, here, India and the US reciprocating protects the free flow of software/information by discouraging CCP bans.
See, this is part of the problem, constantly trying to change what things are outside of our borders.
Bringing Freedom to Iraq, and Democracy to Afghanistan, etc.
The first question to be asked should be 'How is this affecting Americans and their rights' and not how 'this didn't seem to work in China.' Especially seeing the ban applies only to the US.
blocking chinese apps is not emulating chinsese government, emulating would be blocking all apps that are not made in US. Right now China is abusing the free trade and US is well with-in its rights to block these apps
This isn't a very convincing argument. Sure, the US allows apps from other countries, but those other countries governments are owned by the US. When the US wants something, they'll bend over backwards to give it to them.
The more apt comparison would be for the US to block all apps made by countries that aren't subservient to the US. Eg. Apps from North Korea, Iran, china, Russia, etc
>>>When the US wants something, they'll bend over backwards to give it to them.
You mean like this? "A special clearing house designed to allow European companies that trade with Iran to bypass newly reimposed US sanctions will be set up in Europe within months, possibly in France or Germany." [1]
It's the paradox of tolerance. You can't be tolerant of the intolerant or else they'll take you over (which is exactly what Chinese businesses are doing when we are locked to 0% market share there but their market share here is continuously increasing).
That is a philosophical stance that I choose to believe doesn't necessarily have to come to that conclusion.
You can tolerate the heck out of intolerance... until the intolerance mobilizes and then you put a stop to it. E.g. "I defend the right for you to say bad things about people, but if you harm them or try to restrict their rights, we put a stop to that hard, right now".
Theoretically, if the idea is sufficiently infectious, it could infect enough levels that laws can be passed that change it so that the harm is legal (but never moral); but, I hope that humans will resist long before that.
>"I defend the right for you to say bad things about people, but if you harm them or try to restrict their rights, we put a stop to that hard, right now".
Why tolerate speech whose purpose is to threaten, plan or incite violence, but only ban the violence itself? Surely if all speech is to be considered equal, then intended consequences of all speech should also be considered equal. Speech that can't be acted upon is no different than speech that's been censored.
Preventing a fire by denying it fuel is easier than putting it out afterwards. Likewise, preventing the effects of harmful speech is easier by preventing its spread.
>Theoretically, if the idea is sufficiently infectious, it could infect enough levels that laws can be passed that change it so that the harm is legal (but never moral); but, I hope that humans will resist long before that.
The history of the 20th century would like a word with you after class.
As a society, at least in the United States, we've decided that the free flow of ideas is more important than creating censor or ban lists for ideas. It goes hand in hand, in particular, with freedom of religion, a core tenant of the United States.
This list has a vanishingly small list of exceptions.
The fact that the list of exceptions exists at all implies that the US recognizes the paradox of tolerance, it just happens that the bar for intolerable speech in the US is lower than elsewhere. But American freedom of speech still doesn't meet the bar you set in your earlier comment. I'm still not allowed to stand on a soapbox at the town square and organize a mob to kill the President.
The problem with banning "harmful" speech is creating the justification to ban any speech by labeling it harmful.
You fight harmful speech in the marketplace of ideas, by convincing those who might listen to ignore or counter it. Fighting it by forcibly banning it is just might-makes-right.
> The problem with banning "harmful" speech is creating the justification to ban any speech by labeling it harmful.
Let's rewrite your assertion in more general terms: The problem with banning any "harmful" activity is creating the justification to ban any activity by labeling it "harmful."
Further: The problem with banning "murder" is creating the justification to ban any activity by labeling it "murder."
It's logically consistent, and grammatically coherent. "Harm" is just a word like "murder" that can mean anything we decide it does. But there's nothing about speech within a framework of regulation which makes it more amenable to the slippery slope than any other activity, yet somehow we manage to live in a society where arbitrary activities aren't persecuted as murder, because human beings are capable of exercising judgement and discretion, and of appreciating context and nuance.
Therefore it should be possible to define "harmful" speech in such a way that distinguishes harm from not-harm.
The slope may exist, but it isn't that slippery. And if it gets too slippery, we're perfectly capable of installing a railing.
>You fight harmful speech in the marketplace of ideas, by convincing those who might listen to ignore or counter it.
Do you think that QAnon or anti-vaxxers or white supremacists are unaware of arguments to the contrary of their beliefs? That they only believe what they do because no one has ever engaged them in a debate in the "marketplace of ideas" and convinced them otherwise? If that was all it took, these cancerous memes would not have gotten as big as they have. The majority refuse to be convinced, so you've already lost on that front.
By the time you've laid out your well formed and thoroughly sourced counterargument to whomever you find who actually cares to listen to it, Facebook memes and retweets by the President of the United States have already convinced ten thousand people that Bill Gates created COVID as an excuse to implant mind control chips into the populace so he and the Illuminati can more easily harvest their brain syrum, and the person you tried to debate is now convinced you're a disinfo shill and that Alex Jones was right after all.
You fight harmful speech with both education and regulation.
>Fighting it by forcibly banning it is just might-makes-right.
No, it just means that a marketplace of ideas can still have standards and be a marketplace. A marketplace without rules is inevitably overrun by bad actors, charlatans and snake oil salesmen.
Those policies are not harmful to china. They are harmful to us. The free market isn't an end in and of itself. Similarly tiktoks removal from the American market is not harmful to america... Just china
It will become harmful for the Internet because it sets a precedent and other countries might follow with similar actions protecting their markets from foreign apps. For example, here in Russia Yandex would be very happy if Google had been banned from Russian market.
That (emulating CCP policies) is exactly what the US is NOT doing. Instead, the US has chosen to surgically target companies from specific countries (in this case, China) in a sensible, reciprocal reaction.
(I see many posters saying the US should pass legislation like the laws that China has, rather than respond in a surgical, targeted way. Doing so would have far more restricting effects.)
When US imposes tariffs on Canada, we expect Canada to impose reciprocal tariffs on the US; these serve to discourage the original action (US-imposed tariffs), and encourage the free flow of trade. Similarly, reciprocal reactions by India and the US serve the exact goal that you mentioned -- leading by example, discouraging other countries from imposing the same restrictions in non-reciprocal ways, and encouraging the free flow of software/information.
Aren't reciprocal tariffs illegal? First you have to sue in the WTO, and if the ruling is in your favour, you can put in reciprocal tariffs. And if the country takes off their tariffs, they don't have to pay anything back. Eg. The US not paying Canada back on softwood lumber tariffs
Only if there is an agreement in place around it. In the case of the US their tariffs are not part of any agreement and so they can and deserve to suffer reciprocal tariffs.
I don’t know what to say other than that the world doesn’t work that way. When agreements are made there are mutual obligations. If the US doesn’t mind China protecting its industries by blocking American companies, then they have no incentive to let up on their restrictions. Expecting them to explicitly go against their own interests only because the US “leads by example” is ridiculously naive.
I don't recall the USA beating down doors of political dissidents and hauling them off. Do you have some articles you'd like to point me at? Of course they're spying on us. That is an orthogonal problem.
Do you think the trade wars trump administration opened with Europe mexico and canada are in the benefit of free trade, or US supremacy?
Before you have a moral right to invoke reciprocity you should actually abide by that principle. This administration openly say it's policy is all about protectionism so how can you actually attribute free trade reciprocity to these actions?
That question is a setup. A leading question. A question with intent. This is why you ask it, so you can reply the way you do when you answer it for us.
Who cares if any of those companies can operate in China freely? It's really their problem, not ours here on the forum to discuss on a post that removes our options and choices. What is important to discuss is whether or not portions of the US Government are acting illegally in blocking or interfering with freedom of action and speech BY INDIVIDUALS. Fuck the companies. They caused this problem.
Do I not have a right to buy a product and use it? Do I not have a right to use an application with which I best communicate with the people who are important to me? Is it not the US Government's job to oversee the communications coming in from outside our borders and protect us from the harm that may be leveled against us by a nation state's transmissions? Why is it the state insists on making illogical choices that place us in a double bind?
Why is it that our actions are now being very clearly limited? Why is it that we continue to allow our liberties to be removed, one sliver at a time, because of big business greed?
> Do I not have a right to buy a product ad use it?
Clearly, Western society has decided for some time you do not have this right. Numerous products are banned, sometimes for good reasons, other times purely for the benefit of one private actor(s) over another. Generally we use a "democratic", legislative, rule-of-law based process to decide these issues, for all it's numerous flaws. One of the problems in this instance is the capriciousness of the decision, though FWIW it does seem at least loosely based in "national security" powers delegated to the president by Congress.
There will always be such bans on specific commerce. We need a return to a functioning legislative branch, responsive to the needs of the people.
> The US should only engage with foreign governments that respect free trade.
It may be a bit naive on my part, but in theory restricting free trade on this basis just makes us poorer. As long as two parties are trading, they both get benefits.
After the U.S. imposed tariffs on Canadian aluminum, Canada responded with tariffs on U.S. goods [1]. A reciprocal retaliation makes sense to discourage the other side from continuing to participate in these market practices.
If reciprocal retaliation to China's arbitrary bans on US and European Internet service companies is bad, then so is reciprocal retaliation to US-imposed tariffs; but that fails to appropriately discourage the US from imposing more tariffs, and leads to greater restrictions on free trade, not less.
I don't have an issue with reciprocity. I have an issue with using "security" as an excuse to abuse executive power. The same thing was done with counterterrorism.
Sure, then you can just say that we ban them because they did not open market.
Use this "The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has demonstrated the means and motives to use these apps to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and the economy of the U.S. "
I haven't seen a more blatant lie in the US history known to myself...
>Can Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Google Chat, Slack, Discord, and others operate freely in China?
Actually yes, as long as they adhere to Chinese data laws. That's why iMessage, FaceTime, Skype, etc are all able to operate freely in China. All those laws apply to Chinese companies too.
What American data law can TikTok/WeChat adhere to to operate here? Do those laws apply to American companies as well?
A little late here. I don't think having TikTok/WeChat banned is a big issue for China unfortunately. Let's say this escalates and Apple, Nike, Starbucks etc are all banned from China in 'reciprocity', and the US starts banning all imports from China and requiring all products to be sourced from other countries. I'm curious as to who would be the bigger loser.
It would be completely different if the US came together with the EU, UK, Canada and South America in combating China, but unfortunately the US has decided to instead go after those countries as well.
No, there is a BIG difference - Google, Facebook and others can operate in China if they comply with local laws; Tell me which U.S. laws wechat and TikTok violate?
If this stick, it could be very bad for Apple. This is something that can make lots of people switch off of iPhones. Millions of Chinese abroad probably want to have sideloading WeChat as an option
It's easier to work around than you think, it didn't stop Chinese from installing banned VPN tools on iPhones afterall, all you need is shared or registered foreign Apple IDs.
402 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 305 ms ] thread---
As of September 20, 2020, the following transactions are prohibited:
1. Any provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S.;
2. Any provision of services through the WeChat mobile application for the purpose of transferring funds or processing payments within the U.S.
As of September 20, 2020, for WeChat and as of November 12, 2020, for TikTok, the following transactions are prohibited:
1. Any provision of internet hosting services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
2. Any provision of content delivery network services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
3. Any provision directly contracted or arranged internet transit or peering services enabling the function or optimization of the mobile application within the U.S.;
4.Any utilization of the mobile application’s constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the U.S.
---
That last piece especially is quite concerning, and seems like a clear overreach of federal authority, no? Don't know that I've ever seen execution of software alone as an enforceable offense, and as written it seems to outlaw even opening up the app if you previously have it downloaded.
Does that mean the two apps are essentially banned from iOS?
Android? You're right. I'm not seeing how they enforce that? Of course, one obvious solution is to force all the app stores to have some sort of review process that verifies all of the apps are functioning in a manner consistent with, um, "US government policy". Just depends on how far the guys in the Trump administration want to go.
That's the big one. That would suggest blocking by ISPs, something that is technically not easy and legally troubling. Do ISPs now have to block the activities of Chinese phones traveling to the US? That will take effort.
Also, pretty certain the execution of a worm or other malicious software is likewise illegal, whether it be by the execution or the result.
Which, true, is in fact an argument often made.
Software execution itself is not the issue. Criminal intent is the issue.
Not seeing this bit being discussed elsewhere. The whole Oracle deal may not be dead after all.
> The prohibitions raise the question of whether Google and Apple, the major operators of American app stores, could sue the administration.
> Tech companies have made clear that they don’t like the idea of blocking apps without a more organized policy process, and have suggested that they see this as a First Amendment issue, said Adam Segal, a cybersecurity expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.
> Mr. Segal said it was not entirely clear why the administration had chosen to go after these two Chinese services, and not other similar ones. “A lot of it just feels to me to be improvisational,” he said.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/business/trump-tik-tok-we...
Yet they're both perfectly fine with blocking apps for arbitrary reasons citing "app store policy".
Lets be blunt here, whether you agree with the Tiktok issue or not, for Apple and Google this is purely a money issue. They are probably afraid this will increase support for third party app stores among the masses
Phrased less disingenuously: Private companies are fine making decisions based on their own internal policies, as opposed to blocking certain apps based on nebulous requests/pseudo-demands from the government.
The Department of Commerce is saying that the Uniform Commercial Code is also a bit of a walled garden, and we can step in and prevent it.
A company can bar you from saying just about anything. You can be fired for wearing a tie your boss doesn't like (this never happens, but it's legal in 49 states). The government has very narrow parameters in which is can limit speech, or more accurately, punish you for given speech.
It's called the free market. Private businesses can make decisions as they see best, and the barrier for government overriding that is extremely high. In America at least, this is traditionally viewed as a good thing.
We also generally believe that making things "purely a money issue" is how to incentivize people to do their best work.
There are countries in the world where it's widely accepted that the government is closely involved in business decisions and does what it thinks is best for the country, and they ask people to be motivated the goals of the country, as determined by the ruling party, not their own profit motive. TikTok is familiar with one of those, in fact.
Private companies are supposed to able to follow whatever legal policies they want to in order to compete and make as much money as possible.
In a democracy, the executive branch of the government is not supposed to be able to do whatever it wants arbitrarily. That's why the legal principle of "due process" exists -- it has to follow established rules that don't single out individual people or organizations for arbitrary reasons.
The two issues (banning apps, banning companies) could not be more different in terms of the principles involved.
Current App Stores are capricious and make mistakes, but they are not completely random as the TikTok and WeChat bans.
The user base will see the headlines that it’s being banned and then they’ll move to a rival service again like they did during the first scare. Especially since Triller just poached TikTok’s most popular creator, Charli D’Amelio, earlier this week. That coveted preteen demographic might never come back. It’s poisoning the well for Oracle.
But the Commerce order does not highlight the risks, moreover, they don't bother to give specific examples of concern.
The gov. should do a much, much better job at illustrating specific scenarios, cases, impacts, outcomes in order to legitimize the action.
But there are laws, policies, judicial procedures regarding how the US gov. can access that data, specifically a warrant would be required for access to information. Moreover, information is accessed on the basis of some ostensible crime.
Aside from basic censorship of anything and everything, the CCP can use (and does) WeChat information for absolutely whatever purposes it chooses at any time.
If you say something about Hong Kong protests on WeChat - you will be flagged (and censored) and every one of your peers will be flagged as well. Your career, ability to move freely, future job prospects are in jeopardy, let alone the possibility of completely arbitrary imprisoned. There is no 'justice system' to speak of within that framework.
And of course, there are more basic issues of trade - there are zero foreign entities that would be able to operate in China on basic, civil terms. They all have to operate as organs of the state.
The CCP ensures compliance of it's authoritarian policies by having units within private organizations specifically for that purpose. Have a read [1]. It's not a 'conspiracy' it's just how they operate.
There's no way on earth we can allow those types of organizations to operate freely here.
So yes - just as TT and WeChat are banned or changed hands, there should be more action to at least have more transparency on who, what and how the US can access information from FB etc..
This is right at the core of the issue of the globalization of information and it has to be addressed, there's no way around it.
[1] https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-th...
I'm not defending the CCP's actions, but I think instead of banning specific acts, the US should change policy and guidelines to ban behavior, not specific actors.
" In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google."
https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/chinas-cybersecurity-law-updat...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/23/18195200/microsoft-bing-s...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_the_iTunes_Store
I'm willing to entertain other ideas, of course, and I'd love to hear any flaws in my logic.
In the case of China, American companies are not treated fairly. We should reciprocate. Otherwise it's a lopsided engagement that will eventually result in Chinese corporate dominance. We can't operate in China, but they can operate in the US? No way.
Potential market share for chinese company: <population of world>
Potential market share for literally any other company: <population of world - population of china>.
Since <population of china> is ~1.4 Billion, and <population of world> is ~7.8 Billion, how does one not understand that a chinese company has an insane and unfair advantage.
China is one of the largest markets for a very large number of Western companies. If you ever go to China, chances are that the taxi that picks you up will be a Volkswagen, and the planes that take you from one city to the next will be made by Boeing or Airbus. You'll see Starbucks, McDonald's and KFC everywhere, and it's likely you'll stay in a Marriott or Hilton. If you go to the mall, you'll see foreign clothing brands everywhere, and the electronics shops will be filled with devices powered by Intel, Micron, Qualcomm, AMD, Nvidia, etc.
> It's insane to me that some people don't understand this when I discuss it with them.
What I don't get is how people believe that foreign companies don't operate in China. Have these people ever been to China?
Failing to reciprocate will merely serve to encourage these bans and lead to a further fragmented internet.
Has China ever done something that drastic to a US company? What $120-billion-revenue, 200k-employee US company has China ever sanctioned out of existence?
The striking thing about this trade war is how little China has retaliated against American companies. China could savage a lot of American tech companies that profit massively off the Chinese market. But the Chinese government appears to hope that the US will come to its senses at some point, and is therefore holding off for the moment.
I don't understand why this would be a difficult or controversial admission? It's obviously true, and precisely because China is blocking.
It's like I was to take my co-workers and play a soccer match against FC Barcelona, with a special rule added that our opponents cannot leave their side of the field. FC Barcelona would be right to admit they cannot compete in this game, despite being much more skilled players.
So, the special rule forbidding the FC Barcelona from leaving their side of the field also prevents the team of you and your co-workers from leaving your side.
There are laws in China that explicitly give Chinese companies an advantage (e.g. mining is completely off limits to foreign companies) but internet censorship is not one of those. Chinese companies have to deal with all the same bullshit, and foreign companies who do censor (like Apple and Microsoft) are still competing and doing quite well for themselves.
Why should we funnel data from our citizens to hostile foreign adversaries? Additionally, these are adversaries which don't allow any of our major services inside of their repressive firewall.
If you are in a fight and the other guy is playing dirty, not playing dirty is a great way to lose faster.
do not impose your western values on China, as the one true morally correct way of life. what China chooses to do is their decision; we are in no position to make any moral judgement on it one way or the other. in fact, in many ways "we" are the morally bankrupt ones. "we" have not just voluntarily, but even eagerly exported slavery to China. it's really great because we can claim a high standard for human rights at home, and ignore them over there.
anyway, it is 100% fair for China to close commerce within China to China-controlled or China-owned companies. this is not dirty behavior, not one bit. i'll go so far as to say, how dare you. it is completely within their right. it is also 100% fair for us (USA) to do so, or not, or to be arbitrarily selective about it.
so your comment also is that this is some kind of retaliation, a tit-for-tat. and that it's a competition for revenue. it is neither. it's recognition that China (the state) is collecting very powerful data on US citizens.
like it or not, we are at war with China. this data collection cannot be allowed.
If the problem is improper collection & use of data, we've be much better served by instituting strict privacy laws than ad-hoc bans by fiat. Even from a realpolitik standpoint, such a course of action has less potential for geo-political fallout because it is backed by legal statute rather than individual interpretation each scenario on the grounds of ill-defined "national security" or parity of trade.
If the intent is to ban them for the reasons you've listed, this is a disingenuous way to go about it and a court might see through the facade.
China also knows that oppressing an ethnic minority and placing them in forced labor is good for short-term economic success. America did this once, too, also in textiles no less, and concluded the same thing. Shall we go back to it so we can compete with China there too?
This actually makes the case for banning their products, not for being above banning their products though, right?
Do with this as you will, but I as a US citizen was personally impacted by the Chinese government's surveillance despite not being a target of their foreign intelligence operations. A random Chinese kid who was obsessed with forcing me to date him, who who has a politically-connected family in China, used the Chinese government's database against me. Just think how much worse it would be if American citizens were actually targeted by real operations.
In any case, if people are willing to pay for an iPhone with TikTok pre-installed, they're willing to pay 2$ a month (or less) for a VPN.
Would say the CDN will hurt TikTok the most.
Right now there’s zero reason to believe that the administration would target apps outside of China, and as long as that continue to be the case then we should cheer them on and be grateful we finally have a world leader willing and capable of standing up to China.
I hope people realize how dangerous these developments are.
Now Americans are going to have to use foreign VPNs too.
If that doesn't scare you imagine what your "enemies" might do with that power.
I mean, it's true that I too don't personally don't see much value in these platforms and am genuinely confused by TikTok. But... yikes.
People: this is a disaster. And once that power is uncorked it's not going back in the bottle.
Also, hope the US bans Xiaomi phones for the same reason, since applications like Facebook don't appear in the Mi Store.
Bring the world back to isolation, then what follows? Wars, and destruction of what we have accomplished after the two world wars. Beware of the slippery slope, my friends. It sickens me to see people using silly rhetorics to rationalize this kind of dangerous moves: * We are doing this for your security... * Because C has been bad, we need to do the same BAD things... * We should attack Q because we believe they are planning something bad... ...
Very disappointed, I thought democracy is better than this. What difference do you make when you adopt the same approach that you criticized? As far as I know, there are many people in China who once almost believe in democracy and freedom of speech, who managed to get across the Great Fire Wall, end up facing the same Great Trump Wall.
Of course, I'm aware that US could block the tiktok web URL.
What's more disappointing is watching the thunderous applause from technologists here and elsewhere as software is outlawed which is not otherwise illegal and is not being litigated as illegal. We should not cheer on the restriction of any software on nationalistic terms. Content is one thing, physical equipment another, but algorithms should be borderless. Most in the community disagree with encryption export restrictions, why can't they similarly disagree with software import restrictions? 2A groups recognize slippery slope precedents, why can't technologists?
If the content/data is being harvested and/or managed illegally, then make that illegal and/or prosecute under that pretense (even if the evidence is subject to national security non-disclosure). Otherwise, it's obvious this is political posturing at the cost of digital freedom. It should be as widely condemned as government surveillance has been.
(reposted from the now-buried https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24515461)
It's easier to verify what a borderless, open algorithm does.
It's a lot harder to do that with packaged software.
Has TikTok posted the source of their app publicly the same as those borderless and open algorithms? Can we verify what we install is the same as that posted source with no changes?
You can ban finished products without banning their constituent parts.
American companies probably do many of the things that Tiktok does, but this is political and that's where the unfairness comes from.
"Where were you when your country first started banning software?"
TikTok operates in US under US laws, that's technically fair and reciprocal. If people mean reciprocal in spirit, like joint venture, then TikTok partnering with Oracle and storing data in US server is reciprocal in spirit. You can apply this reciprocal state of exception for all Chinese companies in US, provided JV partners reciprocate in perks (i.e. in China JVs provide massive land and other subsidies). You can even legislate tech transfers for TikTok's algorithm. And for the purpose of trade and commercial entities operating to make a profit that's sufficient.
But I surmise the crux of these bad-faith reciprocal arguments is that US should be able to impose its values on foreign markets, and US companies should be able operate in those markets to spread US values like how Chinese platforms operating under US values can shape US opinions. That's valid, but an that's a conversation well past trade fairness which TikTok has already met.
But this isn't about trade fairness, this & Clean Network is about Chinese containment and US hegemony. And that's also valid. China's going to do what they do, the question people here needs to ask is should America also do what China does.
Any company who has lots of data (every tech company) that is successful can easily fall victim to this.
You would think that this ban would be a topic in the election but as far as I can tell democrats are fully onboard with the whole "china bad" thing and restricting social media.
In response to the tariffs, China also ended their domestic ownership rules (requiring 50% ownership by Chinese companies) for auto companies and financial institutions.
I’m sure there are many who believed this, but I’m also sure there are many like me who supported it solely because it would hurt China, knowing full well that the companies would just move their manufacturing to Vietnam, India, Mexico, etc.
I personally think it’s better to make financial sacrifices now and try to isolate China from the rest of the world, instead of waiting for them to do to Taiwan, Laos, Thailand, Japan, etc. as they have done to Mongolia, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, etc.
Tariffs may look good in the short term, but China thinks long term. They only have to wait 4 years, and they can probably get EOs/tariffs changed or rolled back. Long term changes happen from deepening Chinese relationships and passing laws.
Passing laws can also easily be overturned and ignored, and usually amount to nothing because the process is so slow.
Trump’s actions (and China’s reactions) have rightfully turned CCP’s into the worlds greatest enemy. It’s not just the tariffs that will force companies to leave China (and they’re unlikely to return once they’ve set up base elsewhere, and once India, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc. establish manufacturing hubs capable of assembling high tech), you also have Huawei not being allowed to use Android and chips with US tech (which will basically kill their phones) and being blocked from building 5G networks (even paying other nations to block them as well), China Mobile being blocked from offering services in US, HK special status being revoked, pushing for China to lose their WTO developing country status, continuously reminding the world that China are responsible for the Wuhan virus. Trump also managed to force Universal Postal Union to allow countries to raise postal rates (something China have been abusing, forcing other countries to cover shipping costs for cheap junk brought on aliexpress), his administration also requested Meng Wanzhou’s arrest in Canada which resulted in China arbitrarily arresting Canadian citizens, he was the US President to speak directly with Taiwan’s President since 1979, he made the largest arms sale to Taiwan in the past few decades, TAIPEI Act and Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act was signed under his administration, and he’s now banning TikTok and WeChat.. I could probably find many more things to add to the list, but my point is that unlike previous administrations (and other countries), he’s actually doing something meaningful to stand up to China.
Think Russian election meddling was bad in 2016? It was amateur hour, basically just memes and bots and on the level of what a determined 4chan mob can accomplish. China armed with deep social graph data could completely own an election. They are better financed and smarter.
There is a ton of naïveté on display here.
which government is this? It doesn't narrow it down.
> It was amateur hour, basically just memes and bots and on the level of what a determined 4chan mob can accomplish.
I think you underestimate the technical acumen of the Russian psyops campaign. Do not measure it by what it looks like measure it by its outcome.
Don't underestimate the Russians, ever.
> There is a ton of naïveté on display here.
True
It's not that American firms don't act equally despicable with our private data, it's simply that the US has the ability to punish them.
The CCP is obviously doing the same thing, which is why the majority of comparable products to these services is not allowed in China.
If you're going to abuse privacy law, vacuum up PII and behaviorals, and send them to a foreign government database used for blackmail[1] then yes, we're going to freeze your transactions and tell you off.
[1] - https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/09/why-we-should-be-worrie...
WeChat in particular is de-facto a tool of the CCP, it's a giant information gathering and control apparatus that is used to serve the organs of CCP authoritarianism.
It's 'disappointing' that people don't seem to understand the nature of these systems.
If you dare to 'say the wrong thing' on WeChat - you risk your life and career to arbitrary detainment and punishment. If you speak out on HK protests on WeChat, you may very well never be able to enter the country, and your peers will be flagged.
Here's some research [1]
WeChat censorship [2]
Here's is Amnesty International's view of WeChat Tencent - literally 0/100 score for 'privacy'. [3]
The CCP implants state organs into every company in China, a 'private controlling entity' to ensure the board, executives comply with state directives [4]
From the Guardian: "One recent survey by the Central Organisation Department, the party’s personnel body, found that 68% of China’s private companies had party bodies by 2016, and 70% of foreign enterprises. Although these figures sound high, they don’t match the targets the party has set for itself. In Xi’s old stamping ground of Zhejiang, for example, officials set a target in August 2018 to have cells inside 95% of private businesses." [5]
Tencent/WeChat, possibly TikTok - they are under the control of the CCP and far from being any kind of source of 'freedom' - they are 'enemy number 1' in creating a dystopian nightmare.
The actions against Tencent/Bytedance should not be arbitrary edicts from the White House - issues need to be codified in law, or in terms of trade policy, and then applied fairly and objectively, but the outcome is appropriate.
[1] https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/
[2] https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/wechat-surveillance-explained/
[3] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/10/which-me...
[4] https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-th...
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business...
Each of the major empires (US, China, Russia) will create their own walled ecosystems for harvesting and cataloging data about their populace, and will fiercely resist any attempts by the others to gain a purchase.
I wonder how far down the stack that fragmentation will occur.
Until countries begin imposing these types of bans in a non-reciprocal fashion (i.e., targeting countries other than China), there is no reason to believe that the internet will become further fragmented outside of China. Furthermore, the main goal of reciprocal retaliation is to discourage the original activity, so if anything, reciprocal actions by India and the US will prevent further fragmentation of the internet.
Arguing that the US should not engage in these actions is like arguing that Canada should not respond to US-imposed tariffs with its own tariffs on US goods. Failing to reciprocate would lead to more tariffs, not less.
Let’s pretend that relativism is flawed. Now make your argument.
So basically Apple users are screwed because of their strict control of their OS, but Android users will be fine, because you can just go to http://www.wechat.com/ and hit "Direct Download" and bypass the Google Play store entirely.
Yay Android!
The argument for import restrictions is giving up control to foreign governments.
For example, Europe is in a very rough spot because their countries run on software built by US companies, subject to the whims of US law enforcement.
The biggest threat being 3 letter agencies. The CIA does a lot of spying on behalf of US corporations to drive US corporate interests. [0]
The US army banned Tik Tok from service member phones because of the risk of leaking data on troop movement, sensitive communication on the device outside of Tik Tok, etc [1]
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-...
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/army-bans-tiktok-cloud-hopper-em...
Luckily Europe doesn't do any spying.
https://thecorrespondent.com/6257/how-european-spy-technolog...
The critical difference is US companies own Europe's communication infrastructure (Windows, Office 365, GSuite, Azure, AWS, Slack, etc), and not the other way around.
Problem is, the US government does not own US companies.
After the Snowden leaks, for example, Google did a lot of hardening to its servers i.e. ensure all of its internal traffic is encrypted.
If you have evidence that Microsoft, Amazon and Google are totally willing to forgo the security and privacy interests of their customers in favor of pleasing the US Government, please, present some evidence for it. I'm eager to read it.
Second are National Security Letters [1]
Lavabit, a secure email provider used by Snowden was allegedly sent a NSL [2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._United_Stat...
[1] https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq
[2] https://www.fastcompany.com/2682825/lavabit-snowden-s-allege...
The first is Microsoft opposing an effort by the US government to force it to hand over information stored on servers physically outside the US. Which proves my point.
The second is an FAQ by the EFF about National Security Letters. These are times when the government covertly forces American companies to hand over information. Which is stupid. But it has nothing to do with the fact that US companies control certain parts of IT infrastructure in Europe. You don't think Siemens and DeutcheTelekom turn over information to the German government?
The third one is a totally unrelated story about Edward Snowden's e-mail service. Not sure what that has to do with anything. What company would want to host his email? He's a walking target for state adversaries.
So again, if you have links that prove your point, please post them -- but these do not even come close.
Chinese Communist Party puts unfair restrictions so why others should allow CCP to have free reign?
What can we do to ensure this happens?
"""What they collect are data on locality, data on what you are streaming toward, what your preferences are, what you are referencing, every bit of behavior that the American side is indulging in becomes available to whoever is watching on the other side."""
Well, shit. If that's the concern, I hope nobody's told them about blogs, YouTube, or the Internet.
Again, the concern is not that that is happening, but that it's happening by people not under control of the US elite. The hyper-partisan news organisations of the US engage in "opinion manipulation" just fine, as does Facebook.
Wow, no. This is not it.
Facebook is not interested in influencing the outcomes of elections, and the US Gov is not using FB to do so directly - other than to ban egregious misinformation and to allow any legit actor to participate.
WeChat/TikTok are organs of the state - they can and are used at will by CCP organs for censorship, control, monitoring etc. - for any reason, at any time, at any whim.
The moral equivalence arguments being made are simply out of touch with the operational realities of companies in the China vs. US/Europe etc..
First - you mean 'graft' not 'grift'.
Second - Trump's indicating that 'the US should get a cut' is just ridiculous and bizarre. He's not getting a cut, so it's not really 'graft' - but it just plays into his deal-making instinct that the US 'is a player and ought to get a piece'. He's just blatantly ignorant. There is 0% chance of this happening, there are 0 people in his circle that would ever conceive of such a thing, it's just one of those 'Trump things' they smile and ignore.
graft: noun, a shoot or twig inserted into a slit on the trunk or stem of a living plant, from which it receives sap.
Edit: Ugh nevermind I found more definitions of graft. Google only showed the plant/medical-related ones by default.
The USA is becoming a banana republic.
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/uighurs/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53463403
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/activists-probe-genoc...
https://www.vox.com/2020/7/28/21333345/uighurs-china-internm...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/ch...
https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-birth-control-abortion-m...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53650246
...and many more.
---------------------------------------------------
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/uighurs/
=> click on "1 million" on second page
=> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/u-n-says-...
=> "A United Nations human rights panel" [...] "the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination"
=> https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
=> "NICOLÁS MARUGÁN, Committee Rapporteur for China, congratulated China for creating extraordinary prosperity and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the past 30 to 40 years",
"VERENE SHEPHERD, Committee Co-Rapporteur for China, recognized China’s vigorous efforts to promote education among ethnic minorities, as well as the education on ethnic unity in the country",
"GUN KUT, Committee Rapporteur for Follow-up to Concluding Observations, commended China for the timely provision of the follow-up report to the Committee’s concluding observations issued after the 2009 review".
OK...
GAY MCDOUGALL, Committee Co-Rapporteur for China, raised concern about the numerous and credible reports that in the name of combatting “religious extremism” and maintaining “social stability”, the State party had turned the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region into something that resembled a massive internment camp shrouded in secrecy, a “no rights zone”"
ummm, this one is special...
=> https://thegrayzone.com/2018/08/23/un-did-not-report-china-i...
"A spokesperson from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) confirmed in a statement to The Grayzone that the allegation of Chinese “camps” was not made by the United Nations, but rather by a member of an independent committee that does not speak for the UN as a whole. That member happened to be the only American on the committee, and one with no background of scholarship or research on China."
=> https://apnews.com/35ab4fdc95a64a849e8d9a960bab50df
=> "She did not specify a source for that information in her remarks at the hearing."
Great. Solid so far.
---------------------------------------------------
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53463403
=> It is believed that up to a million Uighur people have been detained over the past few years in what the Chinese state defines as "re-education camps".
Just a statement. No links, no sources.
---------------------------------------------------
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/activists-probe-genoc...
=> In an open letter signed by groups including the United States-based Uyghur Human Rights Project
=> UHRP is just a NED/CIA overthrow NGO
What specific laws of the US land are they not subject to?
One does wonder when someone will hold the US accountable for its genocide, as long as we're on the topic.
Case in point : the murder of 3 million innocents and displacement of 37 million due to US imperialism in the last 30 years.
If this was about holding people accountable for atrocities, then the logical and easiest place to start is at home. Instead, we have the Hague Invasion act.
Where do you get those numbers?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/china-say...
Someone from UN counter terrorism went and met some Chinese diplomats. The statement mentioning they "reached consensus" is not even clear about what the consensus is about.
The government should have the power to manage armies, fiscal policies, and so on, but giving the State the power to decide which algorithms I should be allowed to run on my own computer is insane.
Are you sure? What law does Youtube and Twitter need to follow to be allowed to operate in China?
> The solution is obviously not to make America less free
I don't view banning TikTok and WeChat as making America less free. We can just make our own. And we're only doing this to China and it's deserved.
> If the American government were concerned about their citizens privacy they would have passed stricter privacy regulations and only then banned companies that didn't comply.
Well, that's the wrong phrasing. If American citizens were concerned they would make their government pass stricter privacy regulations. But I don't believe that this is mutually exclusive to also banning Chinese companies due to other reasons as highlighted above.
If an American on US soil wants to watch videos on TikTok, and the American government says "sorry, we've decided you can't view that, contrary to your own wishes" then Americans are less free.
PS: "China" isn't a person and you shouldn't personify groups of millions of people.
They need to start censoring content based on the Chinese government direction. That's what Microsoft, Apple are doing.
> I don't view banning TikTok and WeChat as making America less free. We can just make our own. And we're only doing this to China and it's deserved.
The government arbitrarily deciding what you can and cannot run on your smartphone is a limitation of your freedom.
> But I don't believe that this is mutually exclusive to also banning Chinese companies due to other reasons as highlighted above.
The official reason is that these two apps are spying on US citizens, so stricter privacy laws would prevent them (and other popular apps like FB, Google, Twitter, etc. so it would be an even bigger win for the people) from doing so.
The government arbitrarily deciding I can't pour smoke into the air is a limitation of my freedom too.
I can't buy a grenade launcher? Limitation of my freedom.
As I said, if Congress passed strict privacy laws that resulted in the ban of TikTok then there would be virtually no outcries.
Your aggregation view isn't correct in practical terms. The government (with the consent of the voters, I need to keep stressing that) decided that grenade launchers should be banned, but they didn't decide that all firearms or weapons should be banned. You can clearly see how you can pick and choose categories or different aggregation levels to take specific action on.
It's like, you ban grenade launchers because you don't like the potential harmful effects. You ban Chinese companies because you don't like how the Chinese government treats your country. I think it's pretty straightforward generally speaking. We wouldn't be here if China allowed free reign for US companies to operate in China as we have for a long time allowed Chinese companies to operate in the US. We even only ask that Chinese researchers disclose their military affiliation. In China do you think they'd let US military officers work at top research universities in China? Why wouldn't they? Why should the US?
This is overly simplistic and there are a number of additional regulations in place. For example, Netflix (even if they censor) cannot enter China without partnering with a Chinese company because they cannot get a media license [1]
[1] https://www.wired.com/2016/01/netflix-may-never-break-into-c...
McDonald's, Nike, Boeing, Microsoft, P&G, General Electric (to name just a few) all hold dominant market share in China. I have no idea why people constantly repeat this claim so easily debunked. US companies are everywhere in the country and making billions.
This is a tech forum, so we can go down a list of US tech companies, giving their 2017 revenue from China:
* Apple: $45 billion (20% of Apple's total)
* Intel: $15 billion (its largest market, 24% of total)
* Qualcomm: $15 billion (>60% of Qualcomm's total)
* Micron: $10 billion (>50% of Micron's total)
* Broadcom: $9 billion (>50 of Broadcom's total)
* Cisco: $8 billion (15% of Cisco's total)
The list goes on and on, but you get the picture.
The numbers come from here: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trade-war-watch-these-are-...
Regardless of the ever shifting goalposts of those who constantly make this patently false statement about US companies inability to do business on the mainland, let's just restrict it to tech then:
I already mentioned Microsoft, how about Apple? Intel? IBM, Dell, HP? They all make huge dollars in China as well as benefit from their supply chains to sell elsewhere.
I really can't understand why people mentally cling so hard to this notion that US companies can't sell their wares to the Chinese.
1. USA has real intel on China harvesting data to Chinese servers on WeChat and TikTOk and they're filing it away for combing through for weakpoints like blackmail, potential dissidents, contacts in the USA to compromise.
2. Trump is just mad at China and it's a way to get a lot of publicity to show he's tough on them (while meekly staying hushed about Russian interference)
I think both are equally likely.
Plus LITERALLY ANYTHING to distract from how bad the Covid response is going.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html#trends_d...
No other reason. It ties in neatly with the revenge track record and the timing of events ties in also.
(Just the facts, I have no political view towards either side)
Nonsense, there is no proof that this is related.
Again...this has nothing to do with politics. I am merely looking at things from the view of an outside observer.
There are many more valid reasons to limit Chinese influence and "data gathering" but they are largely (at this point) being ignored. This does not begin to dip into the actual "political" reasons both countries involved have going on.
Wisdom of the particular policy aside, once a country makes a really bold demand - "do X or we'll do Y" - they can't back down without losing a tremendous amount of credibility. If you don't follow through on your threats, they're meaningless; if your threats aren't meaningful, only action is. Action is more expensive, so it costs you more to accomplish a goal, so you can accomplish less.
I happen to think this particular policy is unwise (dude, you need allies, and you think Europe won't help you regulate tech? C'mon), but the US has committed. Barring judicial intervention, it would be more unwise to back down now.
I don’t think this reasoning makes sense. Wouldn’t it be better for the US to back down, showing that we are judicial and fair country that doesn’t lash out in petty ways? Trump makes insane claims all the time; no one would take any notice if he didn’t follow through on this one either.
I hope they do, I dislike president having power to ban services and apps at will.
It's funny that they're saying that like Room 641A isn't public knowledge.
Of course, when it's the NSA cloning data out of AT&T to spy for Uncle Sam, it's the good spying. ;)
That's different though because china scary
The two systems are not the same, ideologically and in function and methods. It's fair to think they are equally evil, of course.
How are those the same?
Probably yes? :)
I guess Canada goes in with Euro-net?
This is of course unlikely to happen as EU and US fairly operate in the free market.
China has less incentive to go after me, and what are they gonna do to me? It's not like the United States will extradite their own citizens to China or anything like that.
The United States could easily use my data to come after me at some point, if they decide to. They could make my political viewpoints illegal (like the McCarthy Era) and find evidence of my views from my data and throw me in jail or worse.
Seriously, I don't think CCP cares about you enough to pay people who write good English (not so easy to find in China, surprise!) to try to influence your opinion on an online forum.
It's not a theory, it's been documented. I believe the New York Times was the most recent publication to run an article about it.
It's exactly the opposite, at least for 2020.
Holocaust survivors would find your hyperbole disgusting.
Some actual holocaust survivors do not, and consider it similar to their lived experience, not hyperbole. (https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/06/19/a-d..., https://www.thedailybeast.com/holocaust-survivor-yes-the-bor...)
This is a point of record; no need to hypothesize.
You beat that by having a better value system, and in theory, The value system in the United States is one of freedom of speech and association. If the government has to tell Americans that they can't use a particular messaging system, it's going against that value system. Does one's value system win if one compromised it to get there?
The Chinese government itself need not come after you. Anyone with access to their database (e.g. family members of politically-connected party members) can use it against you, which is what happened to me.
This is oblivious to what's actually happening. It's quite clear that the CCP's objective is to extend their internal thought controls globally, by any means available - economic extortion, blackmail, bribes, etc. Just because you don't live in China doesn't mean you're safe from this.
One recent example is using economic extortion to prevent NBA managers from criticizing the regime. They do that kind of thing publicly and privately all over the world.
CCP is gathering data on everyone in the world into a giant training database for their AI, which they'll then use to discover and target people for further thought control - politicians, citizens in positions of influence, etc. If not opposed, it will create an incredible chilling effect on free speech throughout the world.
In the West, not only can we elect reps to change laws to protect us from this, we have a mostly independent judiciary to strike down unconstitutional laws or to hold organs of the state like NSA and CIA accountable. CCP has none of that - no free elections, and their courts are an organ of the CCP, not independent.
If the world doesn't push back on this hard right now, it will only get much worse. How many times do we have to learn not to appease authoritarians? They see appeasement as weakness, and it only emboldens them.
Please let me know which representatives have 'reducing power and increasing accountability of the NSA' as part of their running platform in the upcoming election so I know who to vote for. I'll even compromise with 'bring back net neutrality', 'use of encryption as a universal right', or GDRP-level protections of consumer data.
Hell, if you can recognize something of the current USA goverment it is the effectiveness of their foreign policy. China is the remaining elephant in the room
If the answer to that question is no, then we should treat Chinese apps the exact same way that China treats American apps. Otherwise we're just getting hilariously abused.
Edit: It's called reciprocity. The US can operate a free market and trade with other countries that also operate free markets. We cannot, and should not, allow the US free market to be abused by foreign governments. If China does not want American companies to operate in China the US should reciprocate. Otherwise we're just being taken advantage of. It's not a violation of American free market principles. Just look at the whole fiasco with AirBus subsidies. The US should only engage with foreign governments that respect free trade.
One hopes your attitude towards reciprocity stops at software. "we should treat Chinese [NOUN] the exact same way that China treats American [NOUN]" is a scary Mad Lib.
If China and other governments are intolerant of our content, code, and signals, why should we be tolerant of theirs?
The same can be applied to software and algorithms. These cannot be allowed to perpetuate evil practices in the name of liberty.[1] I don't see a problem when apps doing that get banned. Though I do understand that people will differ on how to do that.
1. https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/
Took me a few reads to understand your point of contention, but I'm pretty sure I described it accurately. Their intolerance of our products over whatever concerns they have justifies our intolerance of their products for the same.
Is the USA the right regime to morally champion this cause? It the real reason for these bans even remotely associated with this moral objective? I'll leave that up to the reader.
But: with what's happening at the behest of the people who ultimately and directly control the censorship and data of these applications, there is no further difficulty in applying "intolerance to intolerance" in this case.
Are you saying if the US puts a tariff on aluminum from Canada we’re not holding ourselves up to our ideals of freedom?
Also - WeChat is a legit threat even outside the bounds of security.
Game Theory:
'True Free Trade' - everyone gets 10 points 'All Borders Closed' - everyone gets 0 points 'One side opens, one side closed' - the closed side gets 20 points, the open side 5
Somewhat like a prisoner's dilemma.
Finally - there is hardly an argument to be made with 'open' or 'freedom' on platforms that are completely controlled, censored, used as tools of suppression and authoritarianism.
We're not emulating China, we're reciprocating their behavior exclusively with regard to China. We don't ban German, Japanese, Korean, or companies from other nations from operating in the US, do we? No.
The companies that are banned in China are the companies that do not agree to censor political content. That's where you get Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. not being able to operate in China.
Western companies have a massive presence in China - far greater than the presence that Chinese companies have in the West. The top three auto brands in China are Volkswagen, Honda and Toyota. China is the world's 2nd largest aviation market, and Boeing and Airbus dominate the Chinese market. American restaurants, such as Starbucks, McDonald's and KFC, are everywhere in China. Chinese malls are filled with American, European and Japanese brands. Up until the trade war began, most Chinese people strongly preferred foreign brands like Apple - though I think this is changing, due to the hounding of companies like Huawei and TikTok by the US government.
The strange thing is that most Westerners believe that China shuts out foreign companies, and it's difficult to even begin to express just how wrong that impression is. China's development was driven by foreign capital - to a large extent meaning foreign companies entering China either to manufacture there or to sell to Chinese consumers. As a result, foreign companies have a huge presence in China.
They allowed foreign companies in the 90s to operate in China but in partnership with the Chinese thus foreign companies were literally training their own future replacement. Foreign companies only saw short term $€¥ signs as always. Fast forward to today and there is very little Chinese market left for foreign companies to conquer.
I find it difficult to hate the Chinese for not repeating the mistakes of the 19th century and playing it smart.
I don't like that idea very much. We're supposed to be above that.
low bar
What you're saying there in this reply is essentially that every country should just close itself off to the rest of the world and operate on its own technologically. I don't believe this is a point of you held by the majority, not even would I believe you if you told me you hold this view (since I've seen your posts before and I don't think this is something you think).
You know that's the political equivalent of saying "I hold the view that it's good that other people have to give me stuff and I don't have to give anything back"?
EDIT: (throttled by HN, can't reply to below comment)
> what are you doing regularly posting (in dissent) in a community that, in your own words, holds a globally contrarian view to yours?
I enjoy the interactions and discussions. I'm not winning hearts and minds but I don't pretend it matters.
Also I'm not necessarily shooting down the policy, truthfully it's one of those things where I don't feel comfortable having an opinion because it's such a complex subject. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of this attitude, treating every other country on earth like dirt and being all pikachu-shocked-face when it happens to you.
Maybe it's a contrarian attitude here because most of the non-US world is sick of this american exclusionism bullshit. I sure am.
Canada reciprocating protects the free flow of trade by discouraging further tariffs. Similarly, here, India and the US reciprocating protects the free flow of software/information by discouraging CCP bans.
Bringing Freedom to Iraq, and Democracy to Afghanistan, etc.
The first question to be asked should be 'How is this affecting Americans and their rights' and not how 'this didn't seem to work in China.' Especially seeing the ban applies only to the US.
The more apt comparison would be for the US to block all apps made by countries that aren't subservient to the US. Eg. Apps from North Korea, Iran, china, Russia, etc
You mean like this? "A special clearing house designed to allow European companies that trade with Iran to bypass newly reimposed US sanctions will be set up in Europe within months, possibly in France or Germany." [1]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/06/european-clear...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
You can tolerate the heck out of intolerance... until the intolerance mobilizes and then you put a stop to it. E.g. "I defend the right for you to say bad things about people, but if you harm them or try to restrict their rights, we put a stop to that hard, right now".
Theoretically, if the idea is sufficiently infectious, it could infect enough levels that laws can be passed that change it so that the harm is legal (but never moral); but, I hope that humans will resist long before that.
Why tolerate speech whose purpose is to threaten, plan or incite violence, but only ban the violence itself? Surely if all speech is to be considered equal, then intended consequences of all speech should also be considered equal. Speech that can't be acted upon is no different than speech that's been censored.
Preventing a fire by denying it fuel is easier than putting it out afterwards. Likewise, preventing the effects of harmful speech is easier by preventing its spread.
>Theoretically, if the idea is sufficiently infectious, it could infect enough levels that laws can be passed that change it so that the harm is legal (but never moral); but, I hope that humans will resist long before that.
The history of the 20th century would like a word with you after class.
This list has a vanishingly small list of exceptions.
You fight harmful speech in the marketplace of ideas, by convincing those who might listen to ignore or counter it. Fighting it by forcibly banning it is just might-makes-right.
Let's rewrite your assertion in more general terms: The problem with banning any "harmful" activity is creating the justification to ban any activity by labeling it "harmful."
Further: The problem with banning "murder" is creating the justification to ban any activity by labeling it "murder."
It's logically consistent, and grammatically coherent. "Harm" is just a word like "murder" that can mean anything we decide it does. But there's nothing about speech within a framework of regulation which makes it more amenable to the slippery slope than any other activity, yet somehow we manage to live in a society where arbitrary activities aren't persecuted as murder, because human beings are capable of exercising judgement and discretion, and of appreciating context and nuance.
Therefore it should be possible to define "harmful" speech in such a way that distinguishes harm from not-harm.
The slope may exist, but it isn't that slippery. And if it gets too slippery, we're perfectly capable of installing a railing.
>You fight harmful speech in the marketplace of ideas, by convincing those who might listen to ignore or counter it.
Do you think that QAnon or anti-vaxxers or white supremacists are unaware of arguments to the contrary of their beliefs? That they only believe what they do because no one has ever engaged them in a debate in the "marketplace of ideas" and convinced them otherwise? If that was all it took, these cancerous memes would not have gotten as big as they have. The majority refuse to be convinced, so you've already lost on that front.
By the time you've laid out your well formed and thoroughly sourced counterargument to whomever you find who actually cares to listen to it, Facebook memes and retweets by the President of the United States have already convinced ten thousand people that Bill Gates created COVID as an excuse to implant mind control chips into the populace so he and the Illuminati can more easily harvest their brain syrum, and the person you tried to debate is now convinced you're a disinfo shill and that Alex Jones was right after all.
You fight harmful speech with both education and regulation.
>Fighting it by forcibly banning it is just might-makes-right.
No, it just means that a marketplace of ideas can still have standards and be a marketplace. A marketplace without rules is inevitably overrun by bad actors, charlatans and snake oil salesmen.
(I see many posters saying the US should pass legislation like the laws that China has, rather than respond in a surgical, targeted way. Doing so would have far more restricting effects.)
When US imposes tariffs on Canada, we expect Canada to impose reciprocal tariffs on the US; these serve to discourage the original action (US-imposed tariffs), and encourage the free flow of trade. Similarly, reciprocal reactions by India and the US serve the exact goal that you mentioned -- leading by example, discouraging other countries from imposing the same restrictions in non-reciprocal ways, and encouraging the free flow of software/information.
Who cares if any of those companies can operate in China freely? It's really their problem, not ours here on the forum to discuss on a post that removes our options and choices. What is important to discuss is whether or not portions of the US Government are acting illegally in blocking or interfering with freedom of action and speech BY INDIVIDUALS. Fuck the companies. They caused this problem.
Do I not have a right to buy a product and use it? Do I not have a right to use an application with which I best communicate with the people who are important to me? Is it not the US Government's job to oversee the communications coming in from outside our borders and protect us from the harm that may be leveled against us by a nation state's transmissions? Why is it the state insists on making illogical choices that place us in a double bind?
Why is it that our actions are now being very clearly limited? Why is it that we continue to allow our liberties to be removed, one sliver at a time, because of big business greed?
Do Discord and Facebook not transact with individuals?
Clearly, Western society has decided for some time you do not have this right. Numerous products are banned, sometimes for good reasons, other times purely for the benefit of one private actor(s) over another. Generally we use a "democratic", legislative, rule-of-law based process to decide these issues, for all it's numerous flaws. One of the problems in this instance is the capriciousness of the decision, though FWIW it does seem at least loosely based in "national security" powers delegated to the president by Congress.
There will always be such bans on specific commerce. We need a return to a functioning legislative branch, responsive to the needs of the people.
It may be a bit naive on my part, but in theory restricting free trade on this basis just makes us poorer. As long as two parties are trading, they both get benefits.
If reciprocal retaliation to China's arbitrary bans on US and European Internet service companies is bad, then so is reciprocal retaliation to US-imposed tariffs; but that fails to appropriately discourage the US from imposing more tariffs, and leads to greater restrictions on free trade, not less.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/canada-to-impose-tariffs-on-...
Use this "The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has demonstrated the means and motives to use these apps to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and the economy of the U.S. "
I haven't seen a more blatant lie in the US history known to myself...
Actually yes, as long as they adhere to Chinese data laws. That's why iMessage, FaceTime, Skype, etc are all able to operate freely in China. All those laws apply to Chinese companies too.
What American data law can TikTok/WeChat adhere to to operate here? Do those laws apply to American companies as well?
It would be completely different if the US came together with the EU, UK, Canada and South America in combating China, but unfortunately the US has decided to instead go after those countries as well.
If everybody is practicing this 'reciprocity' thing, everybody would have their own GFW, censorship, and propaganda machine at the end of the day.