Hacker News Reader

Comment by ArchD | Hacker News Reader

Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Chinese companies have to obey the CPC's orders that infringe users' privacy. Whether or not it is right for a country's government to spy on its citizens, the current arrangement is assymetric.

If TikTok were made in India, then you would have a good point.

View on HN

>Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow?

Yes I am.

My concerns center the precedent of banning software. If banning software to further the interests of national security is established as a precedent, it is reasonable to assume this will be weaponized against end-to-end encrypted messaging apps like Signal. This would erode a strong, hard fought for precedent that code is speech. The Bernstein v. Department of Justice decision ended Export Control of encryption on the basis of software as speech. [1] Courts affirmed this right again in a ruling against a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors, as it infringed on the speech of video game companies. [2]

Since you brought up China's policies, they also happen to ban end-to-end encrypted apps as there is a strong precedent for doing so in the interests of national security. [3] These simply aren't policies worth emulating.

[1] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/business/china-whatsapp-b...

They're not banning the software. They're banning doing business with ByteDance. If no money or contract is executed, you aren't covered. It's ByteDance that chooses to enforce a ToS and have a contract - they could put the code and app up for download with no money changing hands, and it'd be fine. This is importantly different. Not saying it's right or wrong, just specifically different.

Indeed. I don't see why people are mischaracterising this ban; it isn't banning software, it's an extension of the concept of a 'commercial embargo' - except now it applies to a company instead of a country.

Why does the CPC ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies?

They want control over media, especially political content. They want to make sure speech, affiliation and such is under their control. Are you saying the US should adopt this approach?

Trade fairness is a red herring.

No, the symmetry matters only in the relationship between the two countries, not in them mirroring each other in their domestic practices.

The patriarch of a neighboring family does not welcome members of your family into their home, so why should your family welcome them into yours? On the other hand, that the patriarch practices domestic violence is another matter; you don't mirror that.

Those two are inseparable. China's policy towards foreign media is a domestic policy. Diplomacy and trade relations are subservient to that. They are worried about foreign influence on chinese political culture. That is what is being mirrored in the US by the tiktok case.

In any case, the has never been symmetry... or any intention to have symmetry. Each country has its goals. That's how trade deals always work.

China's primary goals were/are exports and the abovementioned protection against foreign and/or free media. The US' goals are US investment into china, an american-like legal framework for protecting these investments and adoption of US-compatible IP protections. That's what each side wanted. It reflects values. That's what they got. Both complain they didn't get enough of what they wanted.

It's not like the US is going to adopt elements of chinese patent law for the sake of symmetry.

>Are you saying the US should adopt this approach?

Is this what's happening right now? Is there political speech being conducted on tiktok that the president doesn't like? Can the same speech be found on other platforms (eg. twitter)?

Tiktok users embarrassed him in Tulsa.

Are you saying that China gets to ban free speech but the US doesn't?

The US has the 1st Amendment. China doesn't (but should).

If we're just talking about investment, then things are not as asymmetric as you claim. Chinese investment in the US has historically been tiny compared to US investment in China. That only began to change a few years ago, as China began to invest abroad, but the US' protectionist policies have now essentially ended Chinese investment in the US.

I don't really want to be like China so "but China did it" is not convincing in the slightest.

What's the solution? Sit back and watch them take over and destroy the economy?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to care about what the CCP does over there. I don't live over there, I don't work over there, I don't consume media produced over there. Trying to "get back" at China for frivolous reasons simply won't cut it.

But do you care what CCP does over here using their companies. Remember every chinese company is controlled by their government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com