One difference between TikTok and other companies is that they are backed by an entity which has plans for global dominance and are not exactly aligned with American interests.
Boeing is a company backed by an entity which has plans for (and has achieved) global dominance and is increasingly not aligned with European interests.
I know there's a huge difference between the US Government and the Chinese Government, but that difference is decreasing. And Facebook, well I simply do not trust them.
Honestly, I fear what this is leading to.
Airbus and Boeing pretty much go toe-to-toe, no?
Also Boeing still has the very possible abandoning of the 787-Max and the WTO dispute resolution (that still hasn’t been implemented) looming over them.
Except for the part where the NSA is doing political and industrial espionage on Airbus on behalf of Boeing and the US gov so they can throw a wrench in Airbus's negotiations with other governments.
It seems like it would be a good thing if you didn’t have these billion-user social networks, operated by foreign entities that are likely to use them to spread propaganda, censorship, election interference, etc.
Countries competing for the attention of monopolistic companies will just provoke a tranfer of wealth from the citizens of all countries to those companies (see: tax havens).
Boeing as a company producing a massive amount of planes for the EU is absolutely aligned with European interests. Their current scandal is also a scandal in the US and they've also been (and continue to be) punished and investigated for it.
You can't just say "but Facebook!" in response to TikTok, a company siphoning data into a blackhole in China at the behest of the CCP and engaging in censoring as befits the CCP. The current status quo hurts everyone whether in the US or the EU.
The irony is that each of the entities has plans for global dominance, which is incompatible with the plans and interests the other one has.
The sad part is that it turns out the US is willing to forgo its values if this gives them a leg up on China. Makes any future rhetoric on values and morals seem a bit empty. *
* It has been pointed out that perhaps "empty rhetoric" wasn't the best choice of words. Maybe "rhetoric that no longer has any basis in reality whatsoever" sums it up better.
[0]: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catos-let...
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/swedish-artist...
[2]: https://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-...
[3]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-depo...
Oh please… 28 US states have actual legislation to prohibit state offices from doing business with companies or individuals that even threaten to boycott Israel.
Not far from how NBA employees get censored by China.
And there is more to come…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Ac...
Blasphemy laws have just been repackaged essentially under "anti hate speech" laws. They're palatable to the media and at the same time selectively-applicable which is ideal for population control.
In this particular case China's plan to achieve global dominance is in stark opposition to the US's plan to maintain global dominance.
I really don't know what you're trying to say. If the USA achieved global dominance, there would be no China. There would only be the USA. Globally. Obviously, that's not the case.
That's really not what those words mean. "Dominance" is the fact or state of being dominant, not the state of being the only one in existence. So what I said is that the US dominates the world (geo-political, economic, military, etc.).
Let's put it in more simple terms. If Mike Tyson dominated a boxing match it really doesn't mean he was prancing around alone in the ring. Just that if anyone contested that dominance he'd punch them harder. And if that didn't work he'd bite of their ear. Which is a far more appropriate analogy than it would first seem.
And that day they would be no US West and East coast... populated. You know what I mean.
Also, China owns the US economy by buying its debt. Try to crash down China, and look how the Dow Jones gets more sunk than the Marianas.
Now of course in the case of nation states, agreements are changeable by military and economic force, but in effect you would have to do more than simply hold debt to affect another counties economy.
I do think going to war with China is useless. The loss of life would be immense and I see no reason for people to die for ideological purposes. However, a Cold War is coming. No longer, can we pretend that China and the US will become genuine parters, with shard long term goals and policies. If we must be competitors, then it’s best to do it honestly and openly.
They have global dominance, and they got it long ago. The issue at play is not that they want it, it's that they want to keep it.
Yet in other developed countries (like many in Europe) where Christianity is no longer the dominant cultural institution, there is more social cohesiveness.
Religion in the US has been weaponised for political ends and became a means of tribal division in society.