What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing.
If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
China has some of the most draconian restrictions on foreign ownership anywhere yet still gets access to foreign markets. Major US corporations are often forced to set up Chinese-majority-owned subsidiaries to operate in China and must cede huge amounts of control to the Chinese government. Time after time, this results in locals ripping off the technology of the foreign company and then the foreign company being replaced by a local company. Look at the long history of US tech startups failing in China.
The point is that whether you think this specific action is right or wrong, it's totally normal tit-for-tat geopolitics. Countries impose tons of restrictions on foreign-owned corporations. You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign.
This is your idea of doing something simple? You can set up other kinds of corporation like LLC at least. Are other countries less restrictive? Seems like kind of a messy legal situation either way.
In Mexico it's really hard to buy property as a foreigner. It used to be you could not own coastal property at all, not sure if still true.
But I care that some president can simply say "Hey specific corporation, you have 45 days to comply with the rules that are in my head."
> You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign.
Sure, that is a rule in the law, no problem with that. But what if I'm friends with Trump and he makes an exception just for me?
Here in Europe, we have separation of law, government and religion. I know it's a bit more blurry in the states (see the "In god we trust"). In this case (and in some other cases such as pardoning prisoners), your government seems to interfere with your law. In my opinion, that becomes very tricky business if you start eroding those rules. Because when you're friends with the government, the law doesn't apply to you. And if you're enemy with the government, forget about your rights.
Religion has nothing to do with it, besides indicating a familiarity with US politics being mistaken as understanding.
It was just another example how US blurs things that should be separated. In most European countries this would be a big NO for government to express a certain religion. You have it literally printed on your money.
This once again has very little to do with the situation at hand though I’m afraid, if you’d like more information as to why a president can seemingly tell a specific corporation what to do on a whim, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen...
In both instances they're the result of the Constitution being so old and sacrosanct that you can no longer amend it in a meaningful way. You simply change the norms, stack the courts, and you've knocked out the leg of the stool that was supposed to uphold these ideals. A modern president moving around money allocated by Congress flies in the face of the Constitution. Same with an immigration ban based on religion. But the game has changed to "us v them", and if you get enough of your team in the judiciary they'll sign off whatever you want.
If this is the case, why are they forcing them to sell specifically to a US company rather than any non-Chinese company with less draconian laws (EU, etc).
If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them.
To build self-sustaining growth, a country must establish the positive feedback loop of consuming its own goods.
The latest big move in that direction was the new Foreign Investment Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_... that went into effect this year, which introduced a bunch of big changes, such as switching from the previous system of "everything is off-limits to foreign investment unless explicitly allowed" to "everything is open to foreign investment unless explicitly forbidden". That list of restrictions http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/wzs/202006/20200624143734575.pdf already includes provisions for further opening in the future, such as removing the last restrictions on manufacturing passenger cars by 2022. (Special-purpose vehicles, electric cars and commercial vehicles are already exempt.)
If that doesn't demonstrate "intention of opening up", I don't know what would.
The only thing about China that hasn't changed seems to be Western commentators' knowledge of it.
I feel like if you were to replace China with Europe your statement would still apply for the software sector.
China has only recently become a big enough economy in their own right to say "nice try but no thanks" to US driven international law.
[1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-co...
The law (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Internet_Security_Law) :
> Regarding the requirements for spot-checks and certifications, international law firms have warned that companies could be asked to provide source code, encryption, or other crucial information for review by the authorities, increasing the risk of this information being lost, passed on to local competitors, or used by the authorities themselves.
This is not about national security. This is economic retaliation in a long brewing cold war over influence and power, backed by lobbyists who do not like being left out in the cold due to China's protectionist policies.
Call it what it is and I would be surprised if more people didn't support it. But it is becoming far too common for many aspects of politics that are driven by profit or control hiding behind the guise of national security.
Despite having a Chinese parent, isn't it the case that TikTok itself does not operate in China?
And parent company will always have the dibs, if you will, on Tiktok. Regardless of whether tiktok is out of China or in.
Even in the current democracy state, is my expectation that our own ones across the European states will do whatever it takes, with various degrees of flexibility.
We have trade-deals across countries, and IMO these trade deals should account for access to markets, e.g., Chinese companies can operate in Europe freely (abiding by our laws) _if_ European companies can operate in China freely as well.
Trade-deals change all the time, and when these change, some companies might get kick off.
I think this is a functional and rational thing to do for the EU.
If you don't have any deals or specific laws about it, then pretty much everything goes. Maybe the EU could have a law that all foreign companies that abide by the EU rules can operate in Europe freely, but I strongly doubt that. Every country does pretty much whatever they want in this regard (e.g. we see it with some countries allowing Huawei to sell 5G equipment, others forbidding it, and others like Germany attempting to forbid it without mentioning Huawei). All these countries have different rules, so they all end up doing their different stuff.
China (+) is buying lots of EU companies, "forcing" them to produce and do engineering in China, with a Chinese partner, and then ripping them completely off, as part of their 2025 program.
TBH I'm very concerned about some of the companies they have bought (e.g. Rukka). I am certain this is good for China, but I don't see how this can be good for the EU in the long term. China is very open that their plan is to acquire and become leaders in the technology, and then flip a switch and cut us out.. but they are the highest bidders today...
(+) these are actually chinese companies, but sponsored and ordered by the Chinese government, with essentially unlimited funds.
"As an European" is a good way to state that you are indeed not an american. The general assumption on places like hn is that you are one. It's visible in the topic choices. As an example, the team viewer IPO, even though it's been a multibillion IPO, didn't get into hn while tons of SV tech startups do.
When it comes to trending topics, as an insomniac I commonly find myself posting at times where Europeans or Asians dominate. Even then, US stories often dominate because so many non-americans are apparently just as obsessed with FAANG/Trump/NSA hotbutton stories as Americans (edit: at least when restricted in both cases to political wonks who post on the internet). One does get a lot of interesting perspectives from non-americans in such discussions. But "as a person from somewhere that doesn't suck, here's why you suck", generally isn't one of them.
There are certain aspects in how things work in the US that are so far disconnected to how it is, in most of Europe, that is baffling. By an large, this difference applies to most of Europe.
It is of course an oversimplification. But, here are a few boggling things: Politics (in particular, money in politics that looks like plain bribery, or political and misleading ads everywhere), for profit private prisons, no maternity leave, unpaid internships, healthcare related personal bankruptcies.
The list goes on and on, and, since this is a by and large difference to Europe, you tend to see the "As a European" phrase.
There are countries in Europe that have had Gulags in the last 50 years, I doubt they are boggled by the idea of a for-profit prison system.
As a European who has lived in America and now in SEA, this "as a European" is used by people who generally don't understand the variety of different life experience of people in Europe.
I think it also tries to convey how different "a very large number of countries and millions of people" views X. It will always be a generalization.
So, if you consider "as a European" to be "Western Europe", it very often applies, overall. It is a generalization, after all. And, as far as generalizations go, I honestly think "as a European", or... maybe better "as a Western European", if you will, to be very useful way to express a very complex connection, and difference in opinion or... zeitgeist. For example, it helps illuminate the dichotomy in the reaction to private philanthropy in the US that should have never been necessary. For Americans, it is accepted that it is a heart warming act, while (for a European), it more often comes across as dystopian.
As a final note, I'm wondering if you might not want to see that argument I'm presenting. Because you point out how my case with ads and money in politics isn't that uncommon in western Europe. Let's be clear, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, or that Europe is problem free or perfect, or anything like that, but the problem and perception of it, is worlds apart. Attack ads come across as a joke that have no place in political discourse, yet, it is everywhere in the US.
But then again, maybe you are right. It is after all pretending to include the "shared voice" of people who do might very well not share that voice. It can be disingenuous. I wonder if making it more specific will still open up for smaller subsets that disagree. If you say "as a Norwegian", you are still implying agreement from others that will very much disagree.
The EU does stuff, but it is far more interested in a being a trade block than a protector of liberal democracy.
- We put a higher value on diplomacy and less on force
- I don't hear leaders say "God save <our own country>" (might be wrong here)
- We don't want to put guns in everyone's hands
- We have a more social system
- We don't spy on our allies for economical gains
- Our world is bigger than our country or continent
- We can point out various countries on a world map ;)
- Obssesed with American Politics
- Consider themselves experts on issues they don't really understand
What does the OP not understand? The concern of China controlling key economic and tech areas? OR that a president can block a company from operating in his country?
As a European, I might not agree with the decision but I do understand the general concern behind it.
Also, the same way "America" can mean "the US", it's not strange to see people colloquially refer to the EU countries as "Europe", though both are, technically, not correct.
See what happened to Alstom for example. There is a book about that, "The American Trap".
What does that have to do with empires? An empire rules over others, while any country will take care of its own.
The smart ones do.
While TikTok is more domestic. Huawei is definitely viewed as an empire threat and the US is acting way beyond what other countries are doing.
How did you feel about the COVID shutdown? Millions of businesses were just forced by government on very short notice to shut down operation
Really, nobody should be disagreeing that the rise of the PRC poses a serious threat to US interests, but wrapping everything in the boogeyman of national security and issuing legally dubious executive orders such as the one banning TikTok and WeChat give critics ammunition to claim we're not really following any sort of process here (i.e. the rule of law).
"We need to do something about the PRC" is not a foundation for standing up to the PRC. Praising actions like the current fiasco with TikTok feels like praising a doctor who assaulted 15 people in the ER, vomited on the floor, punched a nurse in the face, but properly stitched up someone who had gotten their lip busted before leaving their shift. Nothing that has been done really sets up a plan for dealing with China even in the immediate future. The sudden forced closure of the Houston consulate lacks public context for the rapid escalation in hostilities and the same goes for the ban on Huawei. I have no doubt that there is something suspicious going on, but it is difficult to see a cohesive vision in all of these thrusts against the PRC and that is terrifying.
These national security implications are probably far-fetched, but there's some theoretical basis for action here...
What country do you live where this is not true?