Hacker News Reader

Comment by abeppu | Hacker News Reader

What I don't get is why we didn't pursue something in the WTO years ago.

China doesn't allow FB, Insta, Twitter, etc to operate in its market, but its companies can provide such a service to US customers? Is that not protectionism?

If we're afraid that China will use TikTok to push their propaganda in the US, we should be appropriately concerned that banning a platform to stop targeted speech is in conflict with our own norms around free speech. But instead insisting that TikTok can only operate in the US if FB/Snap/Twitter can operate in China on equal terms seems like it would be more in line with our rhetoric around wanting a rules-based international order, and freedom of both trade and speech under most circumstances.

If western social media companies were able to offer their services in China, their fear of our propaganda would be much worse than our fear of theirs.

View on HN

> China doesn't allow FB, Insta, Twitter, etc to operate in its market

> If western social media companies were able to offer their services in China

I've seen this meme floating around a lot recently and feel the need to add in some relevant history.

Between the mid and late aughts Google, Facebook, and Twitter were all operating in China. Around this time the Chinese government got very serious about content filtering and imposed new restrictions on what could be shown/uploaded. There was a very strong backlash from the US side that American companies might be helping to build the Great Firewall. Many Americans were outraged and US politicians warned the companies not to build infrastructure that could be used for censorship. So the American companies acquiesced and either left the market or were banned (Twitter).

I remember the outrage back then. It's like what I see now but with the facts reversed! Back then the concern was that American tech companies would export infrastructure that could be used by China for social control. Now it's "China won't allow American tech companies!".

"We've always/never been at war with EastAsia."

Kind of disturbing stuff. Watch the congressional hearing of the TikTok CEO and tell me that the powers who are pushing this care about facts.

There has been a very large increase in aggressive talk vs China. It feels very strange considering these same areas were against economic warfare with China when Trump was in Charge, and I would be money were against the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars at some point. The "facts" don't matter. For what its worth, my memory is in line with yours, the back lash was absolutely on the US side.

Chinese containment has been a bipartisan agenda since the Obama presidency at least. It was the “trade war” being fought through used tariffs that certain people disliked and placing them on our allies that was overwhelmingly rejected.

>or were banned (Twitter)

So companies that refuse to build tools for compliance with China's unique censorship/control policies are not allowed in the country. Most American tech companies opted to leave voluntarily rather than implement these controls, and at least one that did not implement the controls or voluntarily leave was instead forcibly banned.

I see the point you're making here, but at the same time, I think the situation as explained here can still be viewed as China not allowing American tech companies to operate in China the way those companies want to do business.

Has the US provided ByteDance with an opportunity to become compliant with this country's requirements that it has opted against? That would seem very similar to what transpired with Twitter in China.

Allow me to elaborate a bit more: by implementing the firewall, China not only isolated itself, it enabled the western internet to concentrate western investment on Silicon Valley firms, that with no big Chinese companies around, established today’s western world internet monopolies. Or in plain English, by closing itself, China literally helped US companies dominate the www.

China on the other hand, not only had their domestic market entirely for their own domestic giants, creating their own expertise and talent pool, they also didn’t even had to think on what to do, as they could just copy US apps “with Chinese characteristics”, making A LOT of money too.

There was a lot of talk about technology transfer, but you right, the narrative 100% changed from helping the CCP to “China bad”, but how bad they really are when they allowed America to make a true empire on the www without the Chinese companies as competitors?

How America is reacting to its very first Chinese competitor says a lot about America true sportsmanship on the market, it’s very childish and lame if you ask me.

I’m having trouble finding useful info about size of china online sector vs USA in terms of GDP. But it definitely isn’t US dominating. Some sites say china is close 2nd to USA, but when I look at numbers china is 3x USA (7.1T Chinese digital economy vs apparently 2.1T in USA).

You're making the opposite argument of the comment you're replying to, though. China can't simultaneously have isolated itself (as you say) and it be the fault of Western companies choosing not participate in China (as the person you're replying to) says.

It sounds like you both agree China made a market that was specifically hostile to American companies, including intentionally banning some, though. Which is kind of the point most people are making when they talk about market reciprocity.

The problem there is that Google, Facebook and Twitter refused to export American values abroad and chose to comply with the censorship laws of foreign governments. I do regard it as morally unacceptable for an American tech company to collaborate with political repression in a foreign country either by silencing dissidents or by helping that foreign government track down dissidents.

I also think it is quite reasonable that American tech companies should be allowed to operate in China and uphold American values in China if TikTok is allowed to operate in the US. I don't see a contradiction. The entire point of letting China into the WTO and allowing China to help Walmart and Amazon acquire inventory to offer "low prices" was to bring freedom to China by opening the country up to capitalism (this was stated more or less openly by western neoliberal policy makers at the time). It definitely wasn't to strengthen the CCP and weaken the USA but that's what the actual result of 2 decades of "free trade" with China has been.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter didn't have that choice. They could either agree to follow Chinese censorship, or be steadfast and get banned. They did the latter.

TikTok is not asking to be allowed to operate in the US and uphold Chinese values. It's just asking to be allowed to operate in the US, and agreed to public oversight on its algorithms and data storage. This is essentially equivalent to what the Chinese government asks of American companies, and what they declined to do, in large part due to moral disagreement from their employees.

> This is essentially equivalent to what the Chinese government asks of American companies, and what they declined to do, in large part due to moral disagreement from their employees.

Sigh, it isn't just this: China doesn't do rule of law, so American companies have to follow rule by law when operating in China, but they are also subject to American anti-corruption laws even for their operations in China, which makes doing business in China difficult (unless they can be isolated from that like they are in manufacturing). If it were just "moral disagreements due to employees", the CEOs would find a way around that, but technically it is just hard to do social media in China under Chinese rules that you won't even be told what they are.

But I agree TikTok should be treated fairly, even if that fairness is definitely not reciprocated in China.

If those companies were willing to obey the same rules that Chinese companies have to obey in China (censoring what the government tells them to censor, sharing personal data that the government asks for, sharing technology that the governments asks for) they could operate in China.

It's not all that different from how US restaurant chains cannot operate in the UAE unless they take things off the menu that violate Islamic dietary rules. So Wendy's in Dubai does not sell The Baconator.

So there's nothing really to pursue via the WTO. It's not a protectionism issue when domestic and foreign companies have to obey the same or similar restrictions, even if those restrictions are onerous.

PRC has "developing nation" status in the WTO. This allows the PRC to get special and differential treatment in a number of IP and general trade related agreements.

Why can't the US throw it's weight around and get "developing nation" status as well. It certainly seems beneficial.

WTO regulation of services is very limited. It mainly regulates the flow of goods. Unilateral domestic regulation or bilateral agreement with China are the only options.

Because the WTO was and is a joke.

They'd have sided with China who on their official books says "they can come back they just have to follow our laws", while in practice continuing to ban and restrict these companies regardless.

What's the complaint exactly? Unrestricted global free trade isn't something every country is expected to support or the WTO is meant to enforce. China can ban foreign companies and services from operating in their jurisdiction for any or no reason. Other countries are free to do the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com