971–980 of 1001 posts
If both sides can be in ... but now only China can be in, influence the media, use $ to buy and work with USA firm in USA etc. etc. But not USA. It is so one sided that China will win only in the arrangement.
Time to restructure. It is time!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two companies that are blocked in China, and are particularly relevant to this conversation, are Google and Facebook.
facebook and google are given conditions that, if satisfied, would allow them to operate in china. the same cannot be said about tik tok and the us market
It has forced the conditions that is theirs as a totalitarian country. USA cannot enforce any condition because it is a free country. And they can come in with their values. But USA cannot go in with its value.
Continue it is the downfall of the USA and humanity. That is why China has to stop Win-then-Win again (yes Win-Win is China win two times).
Open market to assist China to limit their people freedom, that is a great move by Google if only money matter.
And as said, China is poor of everything except money. Want this bad money driven out good one.
The entire western world should treat China exactly the same way China treats them. Western companies have a difficult time operating in China, but Chinese companies have zero problems operating in western countries. It’s completely unfair and if we follow this to conclusion, the future will be one of only Chinese international corporations. Would WeChat or TikTok even exist if the Chinese market were open to existin…
The real loser of this battle will be Apple, not China; they may just lose all their Chinese users in the US to Android in a couple months. The US is and will always be a free speech country, and they cannot go to the extent of imposing a firewall like China does. The extent to which they can take action is to require WeChat and TikTok off the app stores of the US. Which would leave Android users the option to instal…
Great action, I fully support!
What's the motivation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the motivation?
The free world gave the criminal CCP regime a free pass after the 1989 massacre. The same criminal regime get stronger in the last 30 years and put on a capitalist shell on its bloody skin. But it never stopped its criminal practices but has been doing it more relentlessly just with more concealment. For about 20 years it made large scale human organ sells from people they kidnapped or arrested. It put up huge concen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the motivation?
Xenophobia.
https://twitter.com/hnjhj/status/1291906465775509506/photo/1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It ceases to be reciprocal if you distinguish groups at an only slightly higher resolution: Chinese businesses like TikTok and WeChat and American businesses like Google and Facebook in addition to the Chinese and American governments. This is pretty much exactly how reciprocity works in other areas like travel and immigration. We treat their nationals as they treat ours. You can see examples worldwide right now wi…
There are no Chinese restriction on U.S. companies. Why do you think iMessage and Skype are popular in China? If FB/Google doesn't want to operate in China because they don't want to comply to the same law that applies to everyone, then good for them. There are no explicit bans on Facebook and Google. >It's not arbitrary to counter that benefit with a loss of access to the US. Xiaomi and Huawei competes against Samsu…
According to the article he is planning to restrict transactions with the companies, not personal communication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reciprocity doesn't justify repressing human rights. The pursuit of happiness is a human right. Some people pursue happiness by making dancing mobile apps and earning money with them. If China decides to limit that right it doesn't justify the US also limiting that right. Of course this is tiny compared to the much more extreme human rights violations we see in China, the US, and elsewhere. But we should uphold right…
The US doesn't limit human rights. People who pursue happiness are still free to do it. There are certain concerns around a particular corporate entity and a particular government directly associated with that entity, that has a track record of economic espionage, IP infringement, and denying US companies access to its country's market on competitive terms (the conditions that the US has been guaranteeing to almost e…
I'm not sure if "you" is referring to me specifically or to people in general. I definitely am not associated with CCP and I definitely don't support it. But there is a moral ground for treating CCP supporters according to the Declaration of Independence. It says "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". It doesn't say "all men who agree with my politics are created equal, [...]".
We should hold ourselves to our own standard. We shouldn't hold ourselves to our opponent's standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reciprocity doesn't justify repressing human rights. The pursuit of happiness is a human right. Some people pursue happiness by making dancing mobile apps and earning money with them. If China decides to limit that right it doesn't justify the US also limiting that right. Of course this is tiny compared to the much more extreme human rights violations we see in China, the US, and elsewhere. But we should uphold right…
They can do those things on other apps, perhaps apps not published by Chinese companies that offshore user data to circumvent privacy rights. And you're right: This is tiny. It's tiny enough that such a big question like, "Shouldn't the right to pursue happiness prevail?" should appear unfit to ask in its context. I'd like to ask what rights and rule of law were upheld by even permitting Chinese products in the US ec…
If there's a rule that Chinese apps can't be used in the US, that rule should be put into law, not enforced via arbitrary executive orders. If there's a rule that companies must store their user data onshore, that rule should be put into law, not enforced via arbitrary executive orders.
>"Shouldn't the right to pursue happiness prevail?" should appear unfit to ask in its context.
It's about precedent. Just like the FBI tried to set precedent on phone decryption on an "obviously good" case against terrorists. Once the legal overreach happens once, it will keep happening. Rights need to be protected from the very beginning.
>I'd like to ask what rights and rule of law were upheld by even permitting Chinese products in the US economy, given allowing Chinese products is in effect financing the violation of rights on the other side of the planet?
It's the rule of law of what happens in the US. If the US creates a law imposing harsh tariffs on countries that abuse human rights, then enforces that law, that's rule of law (in the US). As-is we have somewhat free trade. We can only enforce rule of law in our own borders. If we want to really enforce rule of law on other countries we'd have to invade them. We've done it before, but I'm not a fan.