201–210 of 401 posts
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 we are a nation of laws, not autocratic whims.
DATA COLLECTION
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In the US at least, the claim that “all Chinese companies are controlled government” is thrown around way too often without evidence backing it up. People seem to accept it as common sense that doesn’t need fact-checks anymore. I’m not saying you are one of them; I just wish we all verify non-obvious claims for our own benefits
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…
I don't know if you get to have it both ways without trampling on WeChat's first amendment rights as well as those of their users unless you pass data privacy laws for US citizens/persons (which might have first amendment implications anyway) and deal with WeChat through whatever mechanisms this newly-passed (and yet-to-be created) privacy law contains. So either WeChat, Facebook, and whoever can facilitate protected…
As a non-American, my question is why does WeChat have first amendment rights? It's not an American company.
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…
160 years in the past?
The Chinese reparations, totalling $US 61 billion is today's dollar equivalents, were only completed in 1940. Then China sided with the Allies in WWII. 15 million Chinese lost their lives in that war.
But I wouldn't characterise Chinese trade policy as victimhood. Chinese entrepreneurs don't rely on any such arguments. They just make products that western consumers want to buy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haven’t they been doing that already? At least requiring companies to use data centers in country so they can siphon/spy on the data? Is that any less nefarious than a forced sale in order to operate in the country? I’d argue at least it’s more explicit (to sell).
The fact that China is doing it does not mean it is the right thing to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that China is doing it does not mean it is the right thing to do.
But it does mean that the threat of China retaliating in kind is irrelevant, because that's already part of their MO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if you get to have it both ways without trampling on WeChat's first amendment rights as well as those of their users unless you pass data privacy laws for US citizens/persons (which might have first amendment implications anyway) and deal with WeChat through whatever mechanisms this newly-passed (and yet-to-be created) privacy law contains. So either WeChat, Facebook, and whoever can facilitate protected…
> trampling on WeChat's first amendment rights As a non-American, my question is why does WeChat have first amendment rights? It's not an American company.
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…
Also, as Snowden has shown us, the line between private and state control is very, very thin.