Not always a popular sentiment, but I don't really mind treating a country's companies as that country treats ours.
I know this TikTok issue is far more nuanced (who the backers/owners are, how data is treated etc) of course.
I know this TikTok issue is far more nuanced (who the backers/owners are, how data is treated etc) of course.
For example while I don’t buy them I have absolutely heard the Russian arguments for Ukraine. You can find complete texts of every Putin speech online, not to mention thinkers like Alexandr Dugin.
The Internet is absolutely boiling over with both pro and anti Israel arguments and propaganda too. You almost can’t even avoid it.
If the powers that be don’t want me seeing arguments against US policy they are doing an awful job.
The TikTok thing is about two things: trade unfairness and how it leverages addiction to push propaganda.
Both points are valid, but the latter applies just as well to all modern social media.
No one cared about any of this until recently. I remember when the consensus on HN was that TikTok was a quirky platform that reminded people of the authenticity and creativity of the old web. Now all of a sudden people are talking about TikTok with the dreadful hyperbole they might use for nuclear bombs or chemical weapons.
My instinct is to assume I'm being manipulated, and not by the red menace everyone tells me to fear.
While social media algorithms can (and does) lead to filter bubbles and radicalism by exposure to extremist content, that just makes TikTok no more or less dangerous than all other social media platforms in that regard, and that remains the case under American ownership. And those algorithms and that extremist content are more often than not protected by American free speech rights, as are the rights of platforms to police content as they wish (this includes the right to propagandize.)
Singling out TikTok because it's owned by China, and might do things it has every legal right to do in the US anyway, seems specious. Social media is already a hotbed of disinformation and propaganda, and TikTok's influence is a drop in the bucket compared to Twitter (which is going full Nazi and the moment) and Facebook and Google, with their deep ties to the American military and intellegence services.
Yes, that's my concern. We don't know the algorithms and IMO the risk is too high, given China's other efforts at propaganda. At least Twitter added community notes, but that's somewhat secondary given the algorithms potentially controlled by a hostile government.
In West it is not state-mandated. Just state-sponsored and state-suggested.
Tiktok promotes mental illness, fake influencer tricks and stupid dances, Douyin promotes heroic 3 year olds cooking eggs with chopsticks on a giant wok for their sick brothers.
You should see Youtube. /s
I mean, in hindsight the US were completely right in their position towards NS, but it's a prime example of the US being not afraid to go even against allied countries.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/us-sanctions-nord-stream-2-gas/a-54565...
Another, somewhat equivalent answer to your question is, "all of them".
The anti-Tiktok focus might be more about the fact the CIA and FBI don't have control like they do with Facebook or YouTube.
Notice they also want to shut down X since Musk bought it probably for a similar reason.
Odd mix. Do you have a source for this?
https://www.wired.com/2012/11/azure-goes-to-china/
It gets a bit confusing:
https://learn.microsoft.com/bs-latn-ba/azure/china/overview-...
So from what I heard at the time was that this was spinning out of a Shanghai water utility, but ownership gets mixed up a bit, Shanghai blue cloud is owned by Beijing based 21vianet, but I’m pretty sure there was some deal that involved the Shanghai municipal government. Ah here we go:
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/21vianet-teams-wi...
When do European governments get private data about US citizens like the US get per CloudAct?
China does not have this problem.
The issue is as old as the Cold War. Europe is dependent on the US' continued spending on its military machine to prop up NATO. For a deal that good, they're mostly OK with the trade-off of giving their privacy away to American tech companies.
The US does not operate in the interest if the EU. It will always be "America First" and if that means fucking over a European country or all of Europe, they will. I don't blame them for this as it is in essence their job to protect them selves but Europe needs to realize that even Article 5 in NATO will not protect them if the US doesn't want to.
The US operates on this planet only in their final interest and if that means ignoring international laws and signed treaties so be it. In fact the US has recently claimed that UN Security Council resolutions are non-binding to the outrage of most UN members. [2]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/nsa-tapped-g...
[2] https://english.elpais.com/usa/2024-03-29/us-sparks-controve...
Allies spy on each other THE MOST. Where do you get this idea that they don't? That's how they stay allies: by knowing each other, they can actually trust their interests are aligned.
Literally EVERY embassy is used as a post to station spies from the guest nation in the host. It's an open secret, and spying is tolerated between allies up to some point - and that point is necessarily secret.
You are applying a very human-centric idea of morality to large, stable countries. If they were people, they'd be perfect sociopaths - hyperrational and emotionless, driven only by shared interests and never "friendliness."
> The US does not operate in the interest if the EU.
The United States operates in the interest of the EU all the time - but only because as powerful liberal democracies, their interests (seeing a peaceful world with freedom of trade and ever-tightening global economic integration) are aligned.
A world where the US reneges on Article 5 of NATO is a world where Europe was already pretty screwed, because that would imply that one or both of these two ceased to be liberal democracies.
> In fact the US has recently claimed that UN Security Council resolutions are non-binding to the outrage of most UN members. [2]
UNSC resolutions are non-binding for permanent members because each permanent member has a veto. There is no way to pass a resolution without the consent of the permanent members, and the US made it very clear that its abstention was only because the resolution was a moral point and had no concrete requirements (peacekeeping forces, sanctions, etc.). The US has vetoed all the attempts with CONCRETE requirements outright.
Any "legal experts" who say it's binding are dodging the point: this is a moral resolution and the US doesn't give a damn about saving Israel in the court of public opinion anymore, since Netanyahu has stopped even pretending that he's trying to minimize damage. This resolution does not compel the US or Israel to do anything since there's no mechanism to enforce their compliance.
It's just like coming PRC EV ban, this isn't about reciprocity. It's about US finding out too late that of their inability to compete. PRC EV companies would love JV setup in states, where local US JV partners provide billions in various subsidies like land, tax credits, political muscling etc because they know they can still make cars cheaper. Local JV's aren't just there to rent seek they have to do serious facilitation work.
Eitherway, US will do what she does, TikTok mostly foreign owned anyways, it won't hurt PRC that much. We'll just have to see which US MNC PRC will force to divest to "leave" in response. The other consideration is does TikTok get to migrate all their US data after they leave? If not, would WFOE Tesla Shanhai get to keep their capital equipment when they get kicked out.
Whether or not most TikTok users in the US will buy this bit of malarkey is another questions.
> As per its Special Security Arrangement, BAE Systems Inc. operates as a semi-autonomous business unit within BAE Systems controlled at a local level by American management. In May 2006 the CEO of BAE Systems described the "firewalled" status of BAE Systems Inc: "The British members of the corporate leadership, me included, get to see the financial results; but many areas of technology, product and programme are not visible to us.... The SSA effectively allows us to operate in the US as an American company, providing the highest levels of assurance and integrity in some of the most sensitive fields of national security provision."
They can't force the company to divest, but they can prevent them from operating in America if they don't.
If TikTok was an obscure app that a few hundred thousand (or even a couple million) people used, most people wouldn't think this ban would be a problem. (Granted, if it were that small, it wouldn't've provoked all this scrutiny in the first place.)
China doesn't give foreigners meaningful access to their markets (and when they do, it comes with a pile of restrictions, including on ownership structure); arguably we should not do the same. The whole "let's expose China to Western values and they'll open up and become a democracy" thing failed miserably.
Still, on a fundamental level, this all feels uncomfortable.
Unlimited access to any bit of IP of the company that at any point finds itself within China's borders seems like the biggest limitation.
What I do mind is the government letting domestic companies run roughshod over the population with surveillance/influence for the past few decades, and then when a significant enough foreign company finally does it, focusing on that foreign company while continuing to ignore the longstanding deeper problem.
Rather than focusing on TikTok, how about a general solution of a US GDPR plus anti-trust enforcement (or even additional regulation) to stop this widespread bundling of client apps with publishing services? Then people would have the right to inspect/delete records TikTok keeps about them, independent clients for TikTok would have a toggle of whether to show recommendations provided by the TikTok service, and the US government would have a much stronger case to go after TikTok if they didn't comply with either general legal requirement.
I'd agree if such a solution was also being considered and would take the same amount of time. How long do you think it would take to write and pass such a bill? I think it would take so long to be essentially a useless diversion. It's an idea that people would push who never want any of these changes because it sounds like a viable alternative but it's impossible in practice.
And realpolitik, I get that both parties work for and benefit from the corporations in their own ways, and aren't too keen on legislation that protects individual rights at the expense of corporate control. I just hate the blatant hypocrisy - this TikTok situation has only come about due to the past two+ decades of regulatory abdication.
The way I see it, going down this path cements continuing centralized control from corporate and government authoritarian synergy - for example the actual mechanism of this bill is targeting the Apple/Google corporate app repositories, because telling individual users that it's illegal to communicate with TikTok is a straightforward first amendment violation.
There isn’t public support for this. Remember the warrant requirement for FISA? Virtually nobody called their electeds in support (see my other comment [1]). Unless someone can show a general privacy bill isn’t a similar boondoggle, it’s not worth policians’ time.
But the overall comment thread isn't just taking the development as a forgone conclusion and talking about technical mitigations, but rather still judging it on what ought to be. As such, I think it's worthwhile to point out that there is another straightforward approach that preserves individual liberty rather than undermining it. And back in the cynical context, this approach seemingly not being on the table is another data point supporting the cynicism.
The book is a 200 page rant. Like, it is beutuful that someone can care so much.
How can people trust that we are an innovative hub if this is how we operate?
Tiktok will not become state-owned/run by the US.
I get what you mean but it is just splitting hairs at this point.
The state already has data access, if the data is in the US. If the data isn't in the US, then why don't we have data locality laws like the EU and India? If the data is already in another country then why do we let another state have access to the data of US citizens?
> How can people trust that we are an innovative hub if this is how we operate?
Because it puts them on the exact same situation as every US company. You can call it splitting hairs, but they already have a US entity that's already subject to US laws and orders. The US's ability to access their data doesn't change (unless they've been storing user data in mainland China, which is kind of damning for them). Forcing divestment doesn't give the US any legal leverage.
And if companies are worried they'll become worth billions of dollars and become popular with every American youth and have a bespoke act of Congress force one of their many owners to divest, frankly I think they've got their priorities in the wrong place.
These people would audibly gasp if you suggested in their presence that tariffs should be equal to what China taxes US firms. Why this? Why now?
We’ve been in a trade war with China for 6 years [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_...
Also, I don't how you have a TPP with a country that you don't allow to own a website.
It’s a miracle that the TPP went down in flames. It had great marketing as an anti-China bill but mostly served to enrich a small minority of notorious tax evaders, namely companies that revolve around state granted monopolies to Intellectual Property.
Companies that don't violate Chinese laws and approach China with realistic deals are allowed to operate there - you can play WoW in China because unlike Facebook it's not involved in censorship, severe privacy violations etc. and Blizzard actually worked with China (NetEase) to bring their product to market there instead of crying and trying to stoke WW3 in the news like our social media companies are doing. Just because Facebook and Google can do whatever they want unchecked in America and its vassal the EU, doesn't mean other countries have to allow it.
The West just wants to counter-block Chinese apps like TikTok in retaliation for them upholding their own rule of law.
China isn’t a country with the rule of law. They don’t even pretend as much. If you appease Xi, you can stay. If you don’t, you’re out.
You can find enough youtube reaction videos for it.
>* Can you blame them for not wanting it?*
No, I don't blame them at all. I applaud it, considering the fact that I find modern social media to be cancerous and dumb.
>you can play WoW in China because unlike Facebook it's not involved in censorship, severe privacy violations etc. and Blizzard actually worked with China (NetEase)
You're omitting details. Blizzard didn't "work with" NetEase, they basically gave them the IP and ability to sell the game in China as well as ownership of all servers that host Chinese players. Microsoft did the same thing with their Office suite and Azure cloud services....because they aren't allowed to independently operate in China.
BTW as much as you think it's a private company, NetEase is an arm of the Chinese government.
>The West just wants to counter-block Chinese apps like TikTok in retaliation for them upholding their own rule of law.
Not quite. China is extremely protectionist of their own homegrown companies. They don't allow foreign competition. This creates an uneven playing field. The west simply wants to play by those rules, too.
My dear bro, this is called "working with".
> Microsoft did the same thing with their Office suite and Azure cloud services... because they aren't allowed to independently operate in China.
You're the one actually being manipulative with words here: Microsoft is allowed to sell products in China and they do, by independently operate you might mean "ignore Chinese laws" some of which include the fact that Microsoft is required to share data with our government on a regular basis. Beyond ethics and ad tracking, why would another government allow US-based companies to effectively spy on them?
> They don't allow foreign competition. This creates an uneven playing field.
Again not true, you just have to follow the laws of whatever country you're operating in.
Without the deal with Oracle they would have to form an American company for their American operations like every international company has done since the 80s.
To use an example from back then, Sony Computer Entertainment started out in Tokyo but expanded to the US. They had to form an American company - Sony Computer Entertainment America. Imagine not doing it this way, every payment in a foreign currency, handling lawsuits, employees, etc.
Speaking of employees, given many of them are equity shareholders, if you ban ownership based on nationality, what does that mean for companies with employees all over the world? Simplified example: Remote culture, no office, the 2 co-founders are in China and NY respectively, they own equal shares of the company, it's registered in China and incorporated in the US, there are employees in both places, following all laws of each. Is that a "Chinese company"?
Under this law, would the Chinese founder have to sell his share to the American founder in order to continue operating in NY?
I guess you don’t know about the “F word and SH word” incident with the blizzard GM and the pro player getting banned from overwatch 2 for swearing and appeal rejected despite the words being filtered by a profanity filter that defaults to enabled.
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/blizzard-confi...
Moderator abuse is a problem too, but tiny in comparison and not actually illegal if you agree to their terms.
More specifically Blizzard is able to bring their product to everywhere else in the world. The fact that they choose to “work” with a local partner in China to get access to that market reads more to me like a government run racket / forced rent seeking than anything else.
> approach China with realistic deals are allowed to operate there
On a more hyperbolic note, I’m sure many people in the past paid off mobsters for the privilege of doing business in certain areas with the rationale they were being “realistic”.
To that end if the US wants to start treating Chinese backed companies a similar way (laws that distort the market) I’m not surprised. China has no moral high ground here. Or more simply your point cuts both ways.
> doesn't mean other countries have to allow it.
Not true: https://www.wowhead.com/news/over-two-million-players-sign-u...
Their services are literally live right now if they are taking signups.
That's a more fair claim, but both goes without saying (because it's what we're talking about) and is still misleading, because and I'll quote the wowhead-
"World of Warcraft has always been popular in China"
Anyone familiar knows WoW has been available in China for many years (they even have a Blizzard China HQ) and Blizzard has been working with with NetEase for years to service that market.
That's true for a lot of other companies, everything from McDonalds to Ford. It's just social media companies whining.
> just found it amusing that the example you used
Intentionally so but could have easily mentioned GM, Microsoft, Boeing, Nike, KFC, Coke, Procter & Gamble, Intel, or Starbucks with their 7000 stores in China alone. Are you seriously claiming that American companies can't operate there? Do basic research and stop watching the news - some of you really can't be helped.
Calling the truth misleading feels pretty 1984 to me but ignoring that for a moment. The truth is that Netease & Blizzard had some sort of disagreement resulting in all Blizzard games being yanked from China. It didn’t matter that Blizzard had a HQ there (which netease live-streamed the destruction of 1) or that they had nearly 2 decades of history of the “good” behavior you mention. At the end of the day Blizzard was forced out as soon as the partnership with the local Chinese company ended. Or in keeping with my hyperbolic scenario as soon as the local “mobsters” stopped getting their cut.
> That's true for a lot of other companies, everything from McDonalds to Ford. It's just social media companies whining.
> Do basic research and stop watching the news
Well let’s see using the first company you listed as an example McDonald’s is a minority partner in their China business 2.
“Last month, the U.S.-based burger maker cut a deal to repurchase the 28% stake in its China business Carlyle Group took in 2017, giving it a 48% share…. One advantage for McDonald’s: its majority partner in the China business, CITIC, provides top-level political cover, … Having a very powerful Chinese state-owned conglomerate as a partner means they are not going to be at the forefront of the geopolitical situation; that is quite important," Yu said.”
> Are you seriously claiming that American companies can't operate there?
That is straw-man & no I’m not.
I suppose at a high level my point is a) Blizzard was allowed there because they paid via the Joint Venutre not because of any “moral” behavior and b) China requires Joint Ventures or other similar arrangements for companies to get access to the China market. For one reason or another China views this as being in China’s best interest. Ok so be it but one shouldn’t be surprised that eventually another country would enact similar laws that it believes are in its own best interest. It just so happens that America is first with Tik Tok being the concern that forced the issue. So now the “reasonable”/legal deal for Tik Tok (& soon others I expect) will be different. As I said before there is no moral high ground here, just basic game theory.
> some of you really can't be helped
While this is probably not over the line. It’s best to try and refrain from personal attacks or anything approaching it. We just happen to have differing opinions on this topic and that’s ok. In fact we may learn something by discussing, otherwise what’s the point of commenting?
Sources 1: https://gamerant.com/netease-livestreams-destruction-chinese... 2: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/lovin-it-mc...