US companies are allowed to operate social media services in China if they store data locally and follow Chinese law.
Apple and Microsoft does this.
Apple and Microsoft does this.
Yes it's a stupid totalitarian law but there's that.
I guess the fair approach would be for the US to require Chinese companies' products to be actively and and preemptively censored by the US government. E.g. require the Global Times to publish editorials praising the US if it wants those editorials to be read in the country. Maybe the US should also pass laws to make forced tech transfers from Chinese companies the norm (I guess arguably that is what the whole "sell Tiktok" is really). Seems fair and reciprocal.
It's not unfair for a company from country X to not be able to operate in country Y because the X company does not want to obey the laws that apply to generally all Y companies.
For example it is not unfair that some foreign financial companies cannot operate in the US because they aren't willing to obey US KYC and tax reporting requirements. It's fair because those KYC and tax reporting requirements also apply to US companies.
It's not unfair that some foreign child car seat manufacturers cannot sell in the US because they have not went through the testing required for regulatory approval. US car seat manufacturers have to go through the same approval process.
Wouldn't giving American consumers access to what they want be the fairest of all?
Just because there's a wrong in China with their censorship, doesn't mean that adding another wrong in the US make a right.
I'm not sure how you could argue it wouldn't be fair. The US would only be treating Chinese companies like China treats US companies.
> Wouldn't giving American consumers access to what they want be the fairest of all?
No? Not unless China did likewise. What is your definition of fairness?
> Just because there's a wrong in China with their censorship, doesn't mean that adding another wrong in the US make a right.
How is "wrong" for the US to treat Chinese companies the way US companies are treated in China? These are simply trade agreements. Besides if you think what China is doing is wrong, then I hope you'd understand that the US ignoring it _enables_ that wrong.
By your logic, the US shouldn't ban products produced by slave labor. Do you mean to make that argument? If not, what would be different there?
I'm not quite sure that's the same? As long as the US bans products produced by slave labour regardless of country of origin, there's no problem here.
But in any case: yes, I can bite the bullet on that one, the US doesn't necessarily need to ban products produced by slave labour.
Speech should flow freely, and in order to do so the platforms on which we speak must not be controlled by hostile foreign governments.
But if the global times wants to publish a pro china article in the United States, but they should be more than welcome to.
Nothing there would go against the principles of free trade or even free speech really. China would be free to open up if they want to engage in those activities. But if China didn't want that, then it wouldn't mean that the US is somehow acting rashly or wrong by reciprocating economically.
This is basically a ban, because there is no world that China agrees to let their firewall down.
Or it's effectively nothing if China argues "they just have to follow our rules".
And then you have to implement the actual ban, which will lead to this exact situation all over again.
Whether it's a ban or not is up to China. If they don't want to change policy that's their prerogative.
> And then you have to implement the actual ban, which will lead to this exact situation all over again.
So? Sounds like in that situation it _should_ be banned.
However I also think this plan will prove way more unwieldy and easy to abuse than a more direct and honest ban that makes it clear China has none of our trust and is recognized as a proper hostile state.
Free speech is a right of citizens and individuals. Denying China's right to control what Americans say increases freedom of speech.