I think the Great Firewall is bad in China and would also be bad in the US. If you want to make this about actual business presence, financial transactions, etc. that would fall under trade, then sure. But how are you suggesting to "ban" a Chinese website or app, other than erecting our own Great Firewall? And would you suggest using that firewall to ban all requests from China? Or just "social media" requests?
Recently, it occurred to me that the Great Firewall could be more of a tool for foreign policy, not domestic policy. If China for instance wanted to attack US's critical infrastructure, they could do so without damaging their own. Russia has recently employed such a system for their country's internet services, if I recall correctly.
It may very well be that this is what is motivating the TikTok madness here in the US. Left to their own devices, perhaps the fear is that China will weaponize TikTok against its US users, with no way to "great firewall" ourselves from those outcomes. Since we cannot use this strategy without angering the rest of the world on the "open internet" we have to resort to different measures.
Completely removing all the ways for less-tech-savvy people in the US and China to communicate feels like setting the US back to before the global internet. It's not protecting US interests, it's breaking apart friends and families who have no other way set up to stay in contact.
I think messenger apps work as well.
Actually lol'd at this. "If they're not willing to play fair, then _we_ must play fair."
I'm saying that it makes no sense to lose on purpose just to say you "played fair".
From that perspective, the most important thing the US can do is keep an open communication channel with people in China so that they can ultimately see the error of their ways and come around to a US way of thinking, and cutting off communication with people in China is making the US more like China. It may be a self-righteous, egotistical, or even completely delusional way of looking at things, but the officially stated goals of US foreign policy frequently are.
Something to be said about an eye-for-an-eye leaving the whole world blind.
Isn't that because they refuse to ( or are not allowed to ) follow the rules/laws in china?
> I see no reason why we should allow chinese social media companies to operate here
But doesn't tik tok abide by our rules here?
> It would give Chinese companies a huge competitive advantage if they were the only ones allowed to operate in both markets.
They already have a huge advantage as their market is much larger than ours and will only continue to grow.
> It's roughly equivalent to China enacting a 100% tariff on American goods, and the US continuing to buy Chinese goods with no tariff at all.
No. It would be like facebook not having to abide by chinese laws while tik tok has to abide by american laws.
Essentially what you are saying is our companies should be able to do whatever they want, wherever they want. Don't think that's going to work out too well over the long run.
The US, on the other hand, at least pretends to have rule-of-law that preempts attempts to use government power to determine economic winners and losers.
All regulations around the world are designed that way. All markets are national security issues and all major powers protect their own turf. China isn't special just because you have something against them. From britain to japan to korea to india to mexico and even canada, they all cater their laws/regulations to protect their own companies.
> Whether or not Facebook can follow Chinese law is irrelevant;
It is relevant. Just because you decide something is irrelevant doesn't make it so.
> The US, on the other hand, at least pretends to have rule-of-law that preempts attempts to use government power to determine economic winners and losers.
You mean other than tik tok? Other than subsidies for boeing, etc? Other than the bailouts of car companies? And that's not even taking account of all the wars we've engaged in to further the interests of our companies. Our invasion and colonization of china for much of the 19th and 20th century doesn't count right?
2. Google is allowed to operate in China. Have you forgotten project Dragonfly (It's internal effort to create a china-only service compatible with China's laws? It wasn't sunk by the CCP, but by employee activism.)
3. Many economists believe that protectionism that locks foreign competitors out is only harmful to your own people.
4. If China enacted a 100% tariff on US goods, let them. It is only robbing its own people - which is no concern of anyone who doesn't live in China.
1. So, what you're saying is that banning imports hurts ourselves.
2. The parties who benefit from a trade are not necesarily the countries involved, but a handful of individuals in the countries involved. Foreign policy should not be set for the purpose of maximizing their comfort. It should be set for the purpose of maximizing overall welfare.
3. If China wants to export useful goods, in exchange for worthless pieces of paper that they can't buy anything with because of tariffs, that sounds very much like 'not our problem'.
Either way, this is all a complete tangent from my original point - that Google, Facebook, etc, do operate in China, and can operate in China, when they adjust their local operations to comply with local law.
The TikTok ban has nothing to do with lack of compliance with local law, and everything to do with an arbitrary executive order, not approved by congress, issued by what is now a lame-duck president. (Which is, ironically, the very same kind of capricious behavior that folks accuse the CCP of.)
You don't want foreign social media companies operating in the US? Fine. Pass a law banning that. Get ready for the world to reciprocate, though. I'm sure there are Indian, German, French, and British startups chopping at the bit, waiting for an opportunity to move into the space that banning Google/Facebook/Twitter/LinkedIn/Yelp would do in their countries.
The US has everything to lose, and nothing to gain by getting involved in this war - because it has a monopoly on exporting social media. By your logic, for example, Germany would lose nothing from banning US social media platforms, because it has no social media platforms that are being exported to the US market, and thus, a reciprocal ban would have no effect on them.