101–110 of 401 posts
All sovereign nations reserve the right to regulate foreign goods, vessels, diplomats, currency, and peoples distinctly from their native counterparts. Apps are truly no different.
Exactly. We are in a new cold war, anybody who is naively supporting or defending chinese interests in America needs to wake up
If TikTok and WeChat's usage becomes more widespread in the voting population of the US, they would have a lot of influence by controlling what kind of content its users sees; e.g., FB has been criticized many times for this, namely performing psychological experiments on its users
I recall this quote by former KGB informant Yuri Bezmenov:
> The main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. Only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage and such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures ... or psychological warfare
The difference between TikTok and WeChat and FB/Google/Twitter is obvious: the former are to some degree controlled by China and the latter are private entities.
I understand there are services part of WeChat that are essential to users, so I would hope there is a good compromise here. I don't see why the communication component of the app can't continue to exist but WeChat is a lot more than a chat app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a sovereign nation, as an abstract entity, can do, is distinct from what its executive leader can do. The only time they happen to coincide is, by definition, in the case of autocracy.
I think there is a strong case to be made that WeChat is, as a practical matter, a public minister as defined in Article 2. Therefore, the executive has the right to refuse their presence in the US. All Chinese companies operate under the direction and control of the CCP; we can arrive at the conclusion that a company is a public minister if companies are people, and they act at the behest of their home government. h…
As long as the USA remains a country that is bound by rule of law rather than rule of dictate, one can't reasonably argue with due process simply by invoking the fact that the USA is a sovereign nation, because the US government is comprised of more than just its executive leadership. The executive branch is bound by laws as drafted by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch.
Good. I didn't think the WeChat ban made much sense to begin with. Sidenote, I've noticed more and more people joining Telegram to evade a potential WeChat ban. I wonder if they're going to stay on Telegram.
>Sidenote, I've noticed more and more people joining Telegram to evade a potential WeChat ban. I wonder if they're going to stay on Telegram. Isn't the whole point of using wechat is its large chinese userbase? AFAIK telegram is banned in china, so I'm not sure why that'd be the logical choice.
This ban is effectively a Tit-for-tat. Thats it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more accurate to say the US had a temporary (1 decade) diversion from the norm of "Benign Neglect"[1] which pissed off Americans to the point they sought explicit Independence. China has a much longer cultural history of being "self contained" (and suspicious of outsiders) which was deeply reinforced in the 19th century Opium Wars, etc. 1 - http://community.weber.edu/weberreads/salutary_or_benign_neg...
Yep. A better analogy would be if the US had lost the revolutionary war, and was subjected to a century or more of British mercantilism, which they were only now starting to recover from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans don't need to try to understand the effects of mercantilism. They were subject to the same draconian economic policies by the British Empire. This is largely what prompted the American Revolution. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies#Economic_pol...
I think it's more accurate to say the US had a temporary (1 decade) diversion from the norm of "Benign Neglect"[1] which pissed off Americans to the point they sought explicit Independence. China has a much longer cultural history of being "self contained" (and suspicious of outsiders) which was deeply reinforced in the 19th century Opium Wars, etc. 1 - http://community.weber.edu/weberreads/salutary_or_benign_neg...
When trying to understand China's commercial policies which America is supposedly retaliating against, consider that China has experienced a different mercantile history to America. America has never been invaded by foreign gunships and forced to allow foreign merchants to import opium to addict its citizens in order to fix their own countries balance of payments problems. Opium Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opi…
How long is China going to put on the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?! By that standard surely Korea can complain endlessly about China and Yuan Shikai lording it over their kingdom in the 1880s, and the Czechs can cry over their subjugation for centuries by Austria-Hungary, etc. etc. In 1949 Mao Zedong famously declared "China has stood up." Apparently though he meant, "We're such a weak peop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in this case, the executive has the authority to ban things based on national security. And if that power isn't properly applied, the courts will intervene. What "autocracy" are you referring to?
An executive in conflict with the courts is an unstable government and an autocratic tending executive.
Free speech concerns on an app built by a nation where people have no rights that bans people for bringing up the Tiananmen Square massacre and Uyghur genocide, unreal.
> no rights This is not true. > Uyghur genocide This is a lie being spread by far right fundamentalist Adrien Zenz that the U.S. media had eaten up.
Is the video fake?