Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 401 posts

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#131

Post by ipsocannibal »

wombatmobile wrote: post #16

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…

China's commercial policies seem designed to ensure that the CCP can deliver on their grand bargain with the Chinese people. Specially, in exchange for political subserviance to the dictates of the party the CCP will make China a economically prosperous nation. So I expect the CCP to hold on to their current exclusionary policies toward non-domestic apps as an more open playing field would endanger the dominance of domestic players.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#132

Post by srtjstjsj »

Jabbles wrote: post #80
wombatmobile wrote: post #16

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…

I don't think this is a useful argument simply because China and America are so massively different in culture, history, geography, language and demographics that there's no way you can say with any certainty that the opium wars caused any particular change. China has a long history with isolationism or distrust of foreign powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haijin

Its nearly tautological that any nation with a "long history" would distrust foreign powers. Foreign powers have a strong tendency to end the history of a nation.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#134

Post by Dahoon »

amelius wrote: post #115
aphextron wrote: post #42

From the beginning of this I never understood how there could be any legal basis whatsoever for the ban. Apparently that's because there was none.

If China can block Facebook, Google, etc., then why can't the US block Chinese apps?

Because the Chinese apps aren't illegal in US law.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#135

Post by zepto »

thinkingemote wrote: post #100
politician wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To clarify the CCP control of companies: 1) The CCP has to have a representative on the board. The ccp say it's like a union rep(!) since they are communists. But they don't have a veto, just a vote like other board members. 2) This condition is only for companies over a certain size. 3) This also applies to large foreign companies not just domestic.

They may technically not have a veto within the company, but that’s not really that relevant.

1. The CCP has advanced access to the company’s plans.

2. The representative can always say something like, “this would meet with disapproval by the party”.

It’s not a formal veto, but it is an implied threat.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#136

Post by yeahrightok »

annexrichmond wrote: post #102

I think it's easy to say the ban doesn't make sense when it is perhaps a preventative measure. We have seen social networks take over others many times in terms of popularity. 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…

"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 think that difference is not that wide as people believe. Throwing money into advertising on any platform will get you close or beyond ideological subversion or active measures.

All you have to do is look at the radicalization and the polarization of left and right in the US and you will see you don't need a state controlled entity at all.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#137

Post by mike_h »

justsomedood wrote: post #34
londons_explore wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long time, USPS was directly controlled by government, yet was also one of the only ways for people to communicate long distance. Government could easily have made laws like "we will read all your mail", or "we won't deliver mail to political enemies". Yet that didn't happen. Why are things turning out differently in the internet age?

A counterpoint is that the telephone infrastructure has been tapped by the US government to monitor even citizens conversations. My opinion is that since it requires fewer people it is easier to do. I don't think the CCP is as concerned with chinese citizens knowing what they are doing like the US seems to

This is one really important counterpoint. The internet made it more economical.

Another is that in days before the internet, the technology for small numbers of people to cause mass violence did not exist.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#138

Post by ipsocannibal »

spacephysics wrote: post #99
tatrajim wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Same can be said about the victim hood mentality regarding native Americans and slavery here in the states.

The difference is that China has been able to redress the power embalance. The decendents of slaves and indigenous Americans have not.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#139

Post by Dahoon »

wyxuan wrote: post #9
threatofrain wrote: post #5

IMO the forced sale of TikTok is very worrying for American production in China; in any future escalation China will likely use that same move as a card to play.

yeah if a company wants to come in and do business, china will usually force the company (especially if it has trade secrets) to create a partnership with a local firm for production, etc

So exactly like the Tiktok oracle deal? The US is taking the low road while pointing fingers.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#140

Post by klyrs »

helen___keller wrote: post #2

A preliminary injunction makes perfect sense considering how immediate and widely impactful a ban on WeChat would be to the Chinese-American community. The onus is on the Trump administration to show that the immediate national security risk of letting WeChat continue to operate during legal proceedings exceeds the impact on Chinese Americans. Clearly there was no proof to make this case, because this was hardly abou…

Also it's a great distraction from Russian interference in the election, which the intelligence community is more concerned with than it is Chinese interference, but helps Trump.
Post reply on HN