161–170 of 486 posts
Why is the US always focusing on individual companies instead of working on laws to protect them from all companies invading the privacy of their citizens? Banning one player isn't going to help much in the long run I would think. Edit: I am an EU citizen if it matters.
It’s more cost effective to make an arbitrary example of one player.
Why is the US always focusing on individual companies instead of working on laws to protect them from all companies invading the privacy of their citizens? Banning one player isn't going to help much in the long run I would think. Edit: I am an EU citizen if it matters.
Maybe because protecting the privacy of the citizens is not the actual goal.
> It's a big business. Look, what happened with China with this virus, what they've done to this country and to the entire world is disgraceful.
The trade war is obviously a major factor as well, but Trump thinks that bashing China helps his reelection chances and helps deflect away from his administration's incompetent response to the virus.
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-07/tiktok-to....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU citizen also... Why is our politics/legislation in this space derivative of the US? Isn't the point of the EU to get a large enough regulatory block to be effective at (among other things) regulating multinationals? So far all I've seen is minor bureaucratic layers (eg gdpr) and rulings (eg the adwords antitrust case) that change nothing meaningful. I don't even know who to complain to.
Issue is that in the EU the states have too much power that they don't want to let go. Currently, each country can block any EU-wide legislation on the main topics and the minor need two thirds approval.* * Actually 55% of the countries, but they must have 65% of the population which means that France and Germany are enough to block everything proposed by all the others even they all get together.
That might become a problem, or be a problem in places... but it's not the problem.
The primary problems (IMO) are:
(1) Influence of multinational interest. Regulation could literally half FB's EU revenue without being very radical, for example.
(2) Lack of polity. The EU parliament is a clown house and becoming worse. There is no political public discourse around it. It doesn't have power. Voters use it for experimental/protest voting. Political parties use it as a proving ground for nationally oriented politicians, and for jobs. The whole thing is dysfunctional.
(3) EU politics plays almost no role in national politics.. parliaments or governments. There's no public discourse here either.
(4) The "executive" is totally closed doors. Legislation is a part of governance, but not all of it.
(5) They don't really know what to do, and they're timid.
Blaming insufficient power, in politics, is a copout most of the time. It absolves everyone. This should be a political faux pax. Use the powers you have more effectively. Maybe then you can have more power.
Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. The jump from banning Huawei from building critical public infrastructure to banning an app that hasn't even conclusively been proven to behave in any uniquely dangerous ways seems to be an intense, unjustified escalation of this conflict. [1] You may disagree with me on the strict securit…
Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Chinese companies have to obey the CPC's orders that infringe users' privacy. Whether or not it is right for a country's government to spy on its citizens, the current ar…
The US has the 1st Amendment. China doesn't (but should).
If we're just talking about investment, then things are not as asymmetric as you claim. Chinese investment in the US has historically been tiny compared to US investment in China. That only began to change a few years ago, as China began to invest abroad, but the US' protectionist policies have now essentially ended Chinese investment in the US.
Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. The jump from banning Huawei from building critical public infrastructure to banning an app that hasn't even conclusively been proven to behave in any uniquely dangerous ways seems to be an intense, unjustified escalation of this conflict. [1] You may disagree with me on the strict securit…
> the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented Given “apps” have been around in a significant way since only 2008 [1], this is equivalent to saying Obama didn’t ban any apps in the name of national security. Banning foreign companies in the name of national security is well precedented and Congressionally authorised. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so long the companies' own countries is also on the US side as well The US side of what? What does it mean to be on the US side?
I don't understand how someone can be on HN for 6 years and not already know this. Look up Five Eyes.
There are no absolute friends and absolute enemies. China was a good commercial partner of the US until a few years ago. Italy has been spied for decades by the CIA. The US wiretapped Germany's PM. Israel was caught installing spy mobile phone cells around the White House.
Or is threatening the economic and technological supremacy of the US by competing on the global markets already a way of not siding with the US?
Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. The jump from banning Huawei from building critical public infrastructure to banning an app that hasn't even conclusively been proven to behave in any uniquely dangerous ways seems to be an intense, unjustified escalation of this conflict. [1] You may disagree with me on the strict securit…
Otherwise you end up with companies that will oppose the US because it doesn't ruin their business but which will cave to other countries because it will. An "every body else is doing it" argument works a bit differently when there is no higher power to appeal to.
I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…