I just don't understand how we can allow a Chinese social media app in the west, while any non-chinese social media apps aren't allowed there?
Same with housing, why can Chinese nationals buy housing here, while I can't do so there?
Same with housing, why can Chinese nationals buy housing here, while I can't do so there?
Of course politicians don't really understand tech enough to realize how quickly (and how unfairly) China is growing to dominate the space.
> Same with housing, why can Chinese nationals buy housing here, while I can't do so there?
Housing is a completely different conversation, and the answer there is that existing homeowners would never allow the influx of foreign cash into their local markets to stop, and they are the ones with all the influence in this country, not the renters or aspiring buyers.
This is really quite false.
Rules are broken all the time, they are difficult to arbitrate, and often they are not.
The CCP requires foreign entities to surrender critical IP, then hand it off to a state-backed competitors, they don't allow full ownership of local companies, there's direct political interference including the requirement for all companies to directly hire CCP members as oversight, and if it's important enough, to have the CCP right on the board.
All of this in addition to the death by a thousand cuts the system can make for foreign competitors via local bureaucratic requirements at every level.
This applies not only to commerce but critical institutions such as WHO which are directly compromised by China (i.e. not allowing any material investigation into 'lab leak origins' etc. etc..)
The OP presented the situation very clearly: there is no way in any scenario that China would allow an American company to have a TikTok like app used by large swaths of the Chinese population, controlled by the US.
Neither would Russia.
On some level, that kind of thing is a bit understandable, I don't quite mind if China would not allow 'Facebook' to be the #1 communications tool in China, that said, it should be reciprocal.
And for other things, like high-speed rail etc. China has been grabbing IP using leverage that never should have been allowed.
Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram worked pretty well here, to the point where almost every teenager has an Instagram account, so I think this is proven to be false. The only reason Instagram is banned now is because of the ability to use it to spread pro-Western propaganda instead of pro-Russian one.
That isn't completely true anymore.
"Foreign investors are now allowed to establish wholly foreign-owned enterprises for whole vehicle manufacturing, including special purpose vehicles, new energy vehicles, commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles."
https://www.iflr.com/article/2a647jipe3beiloc6xeyo/primer-ch...
See Golden rule and Silver rule.
So China ran away with renewable tech developement because greedy Wall Street executives didn't want competition to their lucrative fossil fuel investments. Fucking retards.
However the true question here is more likely to be "what does unfair mean".
Tik tok dominating is just good old outcompeting the competition.
Protectionist strategies create less domestic competition, resulting in underdeveloped industries that would die off in the face of real competition. So if Chinese companies are insulated from outside competition then in theory they should have a harder time developing globally competitive products. If we continue to allow TikTok and other Chinese products it is not without inherent benefits of increased competition driving better domestic competitiveness.
Of course it just all looks like we are getting screwed because TikTok is outcompeting despite all this, but banning or hobbling it will just make Facebook et al complacent and likely even less competitive in the global market.
We need the competition, basically, if for no other reason than the fact that a competitive market is what underpins healthy capitalism.
Plus, subsidies are simply another form of protectionism and the US heavily engages in this too. We can’t pick and choose when protectionist policies are applied because everyone is doing it in certain industries.
You can't sell your widgets in my location. Would you as a seller of widgets think that is fair?
I know the reality is more nuanced than that but people are talking about reciprocal agreements to at least ensure some sense of fairness.
The rest of the world is generally playing on a level globalist playing field of free trade and open competition. The theory for decades has been that if the world treats China like every other country and then over time they will become more open. But this theory has been disastrously wrong. China’s communist party is a mercantilist country where the government and private industry act together as one.
Huawei/China Telecom/etc. notwithstanding, though they are not exactly social media competitors vs. Google/Meta.
Distributing software for you to run on your own hardware is speech, though, and it's protected by the first amendment. You can license the distribution of your own software if you want, but you can't tell me I can't give you software if you want it.
Basically: how do you think this would work, in a way that wouldn't also make Linux or gcc or whatever available only at the whim of the government?
And the "software is free speech" argument itself doesn't apply when we are talking about something malicious that is installing keyloggers and transferring private data to overseas servers.
TikTok is not an American citizen. Nobody is preventing American citizens from printing the source code of TikTok on their tshirts so that people can compile it and use it. This is the only conceivable scenario where the 1st amendment would apply.
And even if that was happening, the US could rightfully ban use of Chinese owned servers in the US. Then we'd get what happens in China: a US-owned entity forms to run TikTok in the US. It is now subject to US rules and regulations etc.
Plus, criminal speech can be restricted in any case. If it's determined that the TikTok app is violating the law or facilitating the commission of criminal activity, the distribution of that app could itself be deemed a crime, or even worse for app stores, subject them to civil liability.
This definitely needs a reference.
Any company injecting keyloggers or monitoring systems into web content should be subject to the same equally damning judgement. Just because it's China doesn't make keylogging bad. Keylogging is bad because keylogging is bad. Companies like Fullstory [0] and Hotjar [1] are used all over the western internet and effectively act as full session recorders. Sure, used well they can be used for analytics, but you could just as easily inject Fullstory or Hotjar into an in-app browser and suddenly record all data a user does. Should this be possible? No. Does it help to just ban China? I mean sure, but why should you be okay with a western company doing it?
TikTok is a short video app used mostly by younger generations. It produces highly accurate recommendations for videos to watch. We're not talking about something like a banking app, a healthcare app, or even a messaging app. It's a video-based social network. There are bigger fish to fry than TikTok in almost every single possible category of app. Yet, TikTok is always brought up because it's from China.
We all shit our pants because Russia used Meta, and American company, to influence the 2020 election. Imagine the same amount of data, a more accurate algorithm, and entirely within the control of foreign actors.
It doesn't matter if it is China or Colombia or Japan, a foreign company have that much influence over the opinions citizens of a country is dangerous.
This is actually the underpinnings of the free market and free speech. It's the ability for everyone to influence everyone else. What do you think speech is? It's the ability to say things that may influence others... and we let people think for themselves whether they should get influenced or not. Once we decide to think for others and choose what's best for other's, we'll have become the authoritarians.
If the leaders in the West weren't concerned about the "average Joe" and their (mis)understandings of politics and situations with complex nuances, then the West would likely be a true Democracy (like ancient Athens, where the People vote on issues such as War and Taxes) instead of a Republic or Democratic Republic (where the People elect a small group to vote on their behalf).
Regardless, I think our Western leaders SHOULD be concerned with the "average Joe" mentality. That includes, by a wide margin, propaganda efforts by other nations.
https://rankingdigitalrights.org/2021/07/14/testing-tiktok-d...
There are _far less_ antisocial practices featured on Chinese TikTok than on Western (specifically American) TikTok. However, the comparison to Instagram and Facebook doesn't differ all that much, so maybe they're simply giving us the content we want.
And I don't just mean the politicians. I mean downright to the pension funds, hedge funds, and retail investor.
They are all long China and especially Chinese tech. If you start declaring war on Chinese tech you are going to obliterate a huge amount of money all to protect the privacy that US voters don't care about privacy in the least. So why would they do such a silly thing?
National security? Please, the son of a sitting President is a crack user with huge ties to China. Nothing some Tiktor user could divulge through the in app browser could ever compare.
Because we are the West, and China is China. We have different laws and customs.
If that is happening then cases under those legislation would succeed. But those legislation don't somehow magically forbid practices that people on HN don't like.
Given they are operating in countries like the EU, US, etc and they are doing the same privacy violations and actions like what Facebook did years ago but worse, and even after regulations such as GDPR, CCPA, etc and Facebook was fined in the billions by the FTC, TikTok should be no exception and must be fined in the billions for this invasive and repeated privacy violations.
Nothing has changed, even after the invasive tracking done by Facebook, and Instagram.
And on the merits, it is unhealthy like all social media, but it still feels so much more fun and worthwhile than facebook or insta where everything feels like a competition to have the best life. So much of Tiktok still feels like vine 2.0
You idiot.
Remember that this is a country that regularly threatens a war that would likely involve the US.
Also the fact that the entire world relies on China is a pretty good place to start.
Also, if you don't know facebook, instagram also have same issue as tiktok. Maybe government should enforce privacy requirement for all apps including facebook and instagram instead of blanket banning Chinese apps.
In the west you typically have to be rich to be a politician, in China you have to be smart, then you get rich(and ban the NYT when your corruption is uncovered).
China and the West are both controlled by factors not really in line with helping the stereotypical Common Person.
For example, when the media in The West "front pages" the smog in Beijing keep in mind The West owns a good part of that. It's not like what's manufactured in China stays in China. I would presume their water ways are nasty as well.
Just one example mind you. The point is, there are other imbalances. That's not to say TikTok should get a free pass, only that it's complicated than an app for app comparison.
I'm not 100% sure on this at this point, but I think if Facebook/Google/etc were willing to do the same they would be allowed in China too, but as it stands they can't/won't comply with Chinese law (I may be mistaken on this, haven't read up on the topic in quite some time)
For what it's worth HK internet presently uncensored, though ironically TikTok pulled out of the HK market as they felt it was too expensive to comply with Hong Kong laws given the size of the available market here.
DouYin is still available in HK though -- not sure if DouYin is available in US/Euro market or not??
It’s some somewhat ironic, because TikTok is Chinese owned, and so is the NSL.
US Housing is generally a safe investment for foreign investors. Since US vestigial racist policies make it difficult to create dense, affordable housing, single family homes are in high demand and relatively limited supply.
> How we can allow a Chinese social media app in the west, while any non-Chinese social media apps aren't allowed there?
Easy. The laws are different.
"Non-Chinese social media app"s are not banned in China, just that if you run one it need to be licensed (https://beian.miit.gov.cn/) first before you can start servicing. Licensing is difficult since there's requirements about keeping data domestic, having physical presence should legal enforcement be necessary (i.e. there are people to arrest if something goes wrong), and complying with takedown requests (both copyright and political). Western big tech companies (rightfully) do not want to comply, so they do not get licenses, and thus have no presence. Attempting to "just provide service" without a license will result in blacklisting via the GFW as enforcement.
"Allow a Chinese social media app in the west" -- this is also more complex. If TikTok or friends violate laws in the west they are also liable for any punishment. For example, TikTok and WeChat comply with the GDPR in Europe and keep EU data local to the EU. If they didn't they'd be looking at a potentially huge fine and possibly getting banned. Similarly they also comply with copyright stuff like DMCAs. If they didn't, the FBI can seize their domain and compel ISPs to not resolve it just like the GFW (this has precedent and has been done before).
So the meta question becomes: Are the current protections in the west sufficient? To which the answer is probably no.
But in any case, in the free world, whether a Chinese social media app's presence is allowed to be maintained should not be dictated by ideology, but rather through real demonstrated evidence of misbehavior and/or harm (which is why research like this is important).
The thing is, and I don't believe this to be controversial, that China has built a digital database of all (or most) of its citizens based on the data they collected. Now the question is, do they stop there, or do they have a file on all of us? The technology is cheap, and I think based on video data etc that they collect through apps like this, they might well build a social graph of the rest of the world (i.e. who does exist, what are their interests/beliefs/political affiliations, and what are the relations between those entities.)
The repercussions of using such apps might be, that they have info on citizens in the rest of the world, which might allow them to nudge people into giving into their political goals (this has already been happening after people posted stuff critical of China on sites like Twitter) - and I think that we have to ask ourselves how that could threaten our democracy.
I don't see any reason they wouldn't be? If anything they probably face more scrutiny than US domestic companies exactly because they are foreign. The problem (at least in the US) is just that behavior like in this post should be illegal but it isn't (yet). They _feel_ ethically wrong but there's no punishment for doing it.
> (...) that China has built a digital database of all (or most) of its citizens based on the data they collected (...)
But so do companies like Google, or Meta, or Clearview etc... This is a real problem but Chinese companies are hardly alone here and they aren't even the first to start mass data collection. As for the domestic data collection and association, that's largely a domestic issue that their citizens need to figure out for themselves. For what it's worth, most countries do at least a little bit of domestic surveillance (as seen from the Snowden leaks), China just has a much more robust system with fewer safeguards.
> I think that we have to ask ourselves how that could threaten our democracy.
That is a good question and I think it should be asked of all tech companies.
Facebook had the whole election meddling thing which started the gears turning in legislative branches of how we might reign in companies as instruments that threaten democracy, and by now we all more or less assume countries like Russia and China will try to exert influence in other countries. However, getting the regulations right is hard even though it is also important. We'll need both experts in the technology (re: this whole thread about discreet behavior tracking that a layperson would never identify) and in the legal space to figure out how to protect individuals. This is not the cold war era. It should not be a battle of ideology. We should instead figure out how to protect people from institutions of power, be it hostile foreign powers, domestic tyranny, or just corporate greed.
Only data specifically about Americans(and Americans alone, contact with a foreigner is open to data collection) that hasn't traveled in and out of the country is protected from the spies, if the spies are to be trusted. They're already known to be lying to Congress, so chances are the American government has a file with all of your social media activity, except maybe your tic tock usage.
I see no reason to consider the Chinese apps special in this regard. American domestic apps have already shown themselves to be dangerous to american democracy, and the American government can do much worse things to Americans than the Chinese government can. The data collection itself is bad, but no government will cut off its own spies
I would be astonished if they did not. The data is freely available and inexpensive, I imagine they are hoovering it all up constantly.
Simply because when XXX nationals come with all cash offers and willing to pay above market & waive all contingencies, sellers are willing to sell.
It just so happens that certain nationals are more prone to having that sort of money than others.
http://anychinavisa.com/news/can-foreigners-buy-a-house-in-c...
So to be more precise what you actually can't do is speculate in Chinese real estate.
The US is a capitalist society; if you have sufficient money US National or not, you have nearly carte blanche to do what you want.
Regardless of China et al laws for foreign home ownership, the US is very permissible simply because money.
And, don't forget farmland.
Seems we'll look back on all of this at some point and decide maybe it wasn't the best idea.
If that happens, I imagine our Congress will brew up some justification for seizing all that Chinese owned property.
Fundamentally west can't get too faraway from these ideals or it will end up destroying its hegemony. Huawei has already been banned, but what comes after social media? And if some action is taken, will other countries start banning western imports specially cultural and services?
The answer both of our questions is of course money. Our version of capitalism is dominated by cult-like disciples of financial management principles.
If the US fucks with TikTok, well maybe they’ll mess with Office 365.
The only way to prevent this is to create laws specifically targeting the Chinese for being Chinese, because 1) the chance for domestic regulation on social media and surveillance is very low, and 2) any regulation we're likely to pass would be about "spreading misinformation" and "foreign interference," so would probably end up closely resembling Chinese regulations.
Suddenly doesn't seem to work so well when a Chinese app is granted that privilege.
Any US company caught putting arbitrary keyloggers in products can and should be condemned. Companies still track large amounts of data and pull shady antics, but the big difference is there is a means of holding US companies to account if they violate privacy standards, not least of which is through uncensored condemnation and legal action. That is not possible in China.
More stringent privacy norms and protections in the US would be welcomed. That doesn’t mean the status quo is comparable to China.
Have yet to see this in practice. What usually happens is a bunch of articles are written "condemning" their actions, they are fined some ridiculously small amount and then business continues as usual.
The most recent action that seems to have had a significant impact on how Facebook captures data is Apple's "Ask App Not to Track". This is not exactly a shining example of the how the US system protects users privacy as the action was taken by a company, not a regulator.
US companies and regulators do not have to be shining beacons of user privacy and protections to be better than a system with no boundary between the state and private companies, with no expectation of privacy, and with censorship of opinion that criticizes shortcomings of the state.
For example, we normally think about the opposite of free speech as speech being suppressed, but being made to speak, to people you don't wish to speak to, at a time that is not of your choosing, none of that is freedom of speech even though you expressed your thoughts.
Hence, there is no freedom of speech without privacy. That's why it often gets wrapped up in the, in my view far better, phrase freedom of expression.
Also, as mentioned in the first sentence of the article, this is exactly what Meta does in the Facebook and Instagram apps.
I’m not saying that others don’t do it. Just that it’s not speech ?
[0] https://www.unipi.it/index.php/welcome-and-support/item/7413...
Trade limitations have always and will always exist. Heck there are hundreds of limitations in trade between the US and Canada - including the complete illegality of Kinder Eggs in the US, which I still find hilarious.