171–180 of 1001 posts
Under what authority can he issue this order?
> By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
This is sad, we in the US are losing the little high ground we had and no longer lead by example to bring the world closer together by encouraging free markets and free people. I'm against this protectionist nationalism, it only leads to future conflict.
> no longer lead by example to bring the world closer together by encouraging free markets and free people. It does not work very well if you are the only nice guy within a group of a--holes. You just end up being beaten up. Free Markets work well if pretty much everyone adopts the same rules of commerce, but China is way beyond that point.
Excluding self defense, I wonder if this can be applied to nations too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US is merely reciprocating the policies of CCP: let them allow US companies to compete fairly in China as well.
Yes, by mirroring China’s authoritarianism and restricting the freedom of Americans. I’m living overseas and now my government is telling me I can’t use WeChat? Telling me who I can and cannot trade with, etc. Restrictions on trade with China are attacks on our freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China never forced US companies to sell their investments in China at firesale prices. This is not a proportionate response.
Don't they prevent some of our companies from operating there though? And then developed their own competing solutions free from competition. That's not exactly a free market, is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do countries get to do this to each other whenever they feel like it now No, but wake me up when the US does this to another free and open country, rather than one that has a history of aggressively doing this to Western countries.
China never forced US companies to sell their investments in China at firesale prices. This is not a proportionate response.
"Operation Aurora was a series of cyber attacks conducted by advanced persistent threats such as the Elderwood Group based in Beijing, China, with ties to the People's Liberation Army.[2] First publicly disclosed by Google on January 12, 2010, in a blog post,[1] the attacks began in mid-2009 and continued through December 2009.[3]
The attack was aimed at dozens of other organizations, of which Adobe Systems,[4] Akamai Technologies,[5] Juniper Networks[6] and Rackspace[7] have publicly confirmed that they were targeted. According to media reports, Yahoo, Symantec, Northrop Grumman, Morgan Stanley,[8] Dow Chemical,[9] and BlackBerry [10] were also among the targets."
Why force to sell when you can do the above?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats how world wars break out.
A Cold War scenario is far more likely. Remember that the tension with the Soviets was far, far, higher, and that never turned into a full-on war.
But almost did (Cuban Missile Crisis), and there were several wars* by proxy (some with China too).
*conflicts technically, as Congress hasn't declared war since WW2
So does this ban transactions with all of Tencent or just those in relation to WeChat? https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or... Section 1. (a) The following actions shall be prohibited beginning 45 days after the date of this order, to the extent permitted under applicable law: any transaction that is related to WeChat by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction…
And what's a "transaction"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because many US companies have been at the receiving end of unfair trade practices, copyright theft and blatant IP violations from the mainland. It's good that we are finally doing something about that.
I dunno, it worries me to see popular narratives sinking back into nationalistic perspectives. This entrenches us in the “ they did A, so we will respond with B” logic, and from there, it only takes a few “reasonable” exchanges between nations “just looking out for themselves” for us all to end up in a situation nobody wanted.
This not just a case of “they did A, so we will respond with B”. It's a case of “they did A, B, C, etc. so we are responding with X after 10+ years“. To be fair, successive US administrations across party lines gave CCP a long enough rope.
Can someone explain the motivation?
The stated motivation is to reduce misinformation from China in lead up to election. Pretty wild that Facebook which was 100% proven to have been used for Russian misinformation in the last, and this election, somehow dodged a bullet on this... My (totally personal opinion guess) is that this is just another way to poke the bear as part of the tit-for-tat with China and maybe a minor contributing factor that someone…
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...
Edit: okay, there is a bit, e.g. "This mobile application may also be used for disinformation campaigns that benefit the Chinese Communist Party, such as when TikTok videos spread debunked conspiracy theories about the origins of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus"
Forget I said anything. HN is infiltrated by propaganda without people even realising.
Can you point out some obvious propaganda? And not just some argument you disagree with?
The same can apply to social media, it can be pretty obvious based on commenting patterns that there is some propaganda going on in posts blatantly about China, without it being able to identify with any degree of certainty which comments are problematic.
(I take no stance on whether or not there is obviously propaganda here, the commenting and voting does strike me as suspicious, but not to the degree that I think it's a slam dunk that it's not just the result of a biased sample of HN users being interested in posts like this).