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

Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 694 posts

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#391

Post by saimiam »

skissane wrote: post #365
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's unfair, but when you defend something for moral reasons or claim to have a moral high ground, you should stick with it even if it's unfair, right? The West has always said that the Chinese bans to Western social media and tech companies were authoritarian and antidemocratic. How is this less so?

> The West has always said that the Chinese bans to Western social media and tech companies were authoritarian and antidemocratic. How is this less so? Policy A: "Any social media platform that refuses to censor opinions the government doesn't like is banned" Policy B: "Foreign social media platforms are only allowed to operate in our country if our own social media platforms are allowed to operate on the same terms…

I won't torture your POWs if you don't torture ours.

I won't nationalize your assets in my country if you don't nationalize my assets in your country.

I will ban your books if you ban mine.

"I will x if you will also x" makes you reactionary and gives agency to someone else to act on your behalf.

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#392

Post by miracle2k »

pupdogg wrote: post #344
kjksf wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is that it's a president arbitrarily destroying a company. If the Congress (the actual body meant to crate laws) decides to create a reasoned, comprehensive law to level the playing field with Chinese companies, then they should do it. What shouldn't happen is this kind of impulsive decision making that arguably abuses the emergency powers of the presidency to block an app that allows people to film th…

I disagree. The definition of "arbitrarily" states: "on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". I think the President's decision is based on reason and is not a random choice or a personal whim as much as it might seem to some. Now, why is that? Well, it became public yesterday that Microsoft was in talks with TikTok to acquire them. Though every business decision by big player…

The meaning of "arbitrary" here is that the decision is based on the whims of the White House, rather than on well-established rules that apply to everyone - regardless of how well-reasoned the authors of such a ban might think themselves.

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#393

Post by IgorPartola »

euix wrote: post #48

Shows how far the balance of power has shifted in the last 20 years back when the Chinese government was banning western products to prevent "spiritual pollution" and "western influence". Now we got the reverse and it's also for ideological reasons (at least at face value). Wonder if WeChat is next. That would be fairly effective in prevent overseas Chinese from communicating with the mainland and a lot of mom and po…

Look, this isn’t ideological. This is about Trump being butt hurt. I wish I could put a more nuanced spin on it, but that’s all to this story. TikTok has been a big platform for his critics and he is in a perpetual fight with China. That’s how we ended up here. WeChat is not on his radar and makes no difference to him. It won’t get banned. To be fair, I have a feeling TikTok will simply sue and win since this is blatantly unlawful, but I guess we will see.

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#394

Post by skissane »

saimiam wrote: post #391
skissane wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The West has always said that the Chinese bans to Western social media and tech companies were authoritarian and antidemocratic. How is this less so? Policy A: "Any social media platform that refuses to censor opinions the government doesn't like is banned" Policy B: "Foreign social media platforms are only allowed to operate in our country if our own social media platforms are allowed to operate on the same terms…

I won't torture your POWs if you don't torture ours. I won't nationalize your assets in my country if you don't nationalize my assets in your country. I will ban your books if you ban mine. "I will x if you will also x" makes you reactionary and gives agency to someone else to act on your behalf.

It is standard behaviour in international trade though. “If you ban our products from your country, we’ll ban your products from ours”.

Suppose hypothetically, that the EU banned imports of Australian wine, why would it be “reactionary” for Australia to respond in kind by banning imports of EU wine?

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#395

Post by atomi »

pupdogg wrote: post #344
kjksf wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is that it's a president arbitrarily destroying a company. If the Congress (the actual body meant to crate laws) decides to create a reasoned, comprehensive law to level the playing field with Chinese companies, then they should do it. What shouldn't happen is this kind of impulsive decision making that arguably abuses the emergency powers of the presidency to block an app that allows people to film th…

I disagree. The definition of "arbitrarily" states: "on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". I think the President's decision is based on reason and is not a random choice or a personal whim as much as it might seem to some. Now, why is that? Well, it became public yesterday that Microsoft was in talks with TikTok to acquire them. Though every business decision by big player…

I think the above poster probably means to say "unilaterally."

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#396

Post by whoevercares »

pupdogg wrote: post #344
kjksf wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is that it's a president arbitrarily destroying a company. If the Congress (the actual body meant to crate laws) decides to create a reasoned, comprehensive law to level the playing field with Chinese companies, then they should do it. What shouldn't happen is this kind of impulsive decision making that arguably abuses the emergency powers of the presidency to block an app that allows people to film th…

I disagree. The definition of "arbitrarily" states: "on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". I think the President's decision is based on reason and is not a random choice or a personal whim as much as it might seem to some. Now, why is that? Well, it became public yesterday that Microsoft was in talks with TikTok to acquire them. Though every business decision by big player…

From a native Chinese’s perspective, this is scary: what’s the next thing he will ban?

- Wechat: this make a virtual “family separation”

- A purge of any app related to China (TuSimple, Zoom etc)

- Suspend F1 and H1B visa for “suspected” Chinese and make special scrutiny during immigration interviews for all Chinese applicants

- witch hunt more

Let me tell you what’s this: Chinese Exclusion Act II

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#397

Post by sturgill »

saimiam wrote: post #391
skissane wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The West has always said that the Chinese bans to Western social media and tech companies were authoritarian and antidemocratic. How is this less so? Policy A: "Any social media platform that refuses to censor opinions the government doesn't like is banned" Policy B: "Foreign social media platforms are only allowed to operate in our country if our own social media platforms are allowed to operate on the same terms…

I won't torture your POWs if you don't torture ours. I won't nationalize your assets in my country if you don't nationalize my assets in your country. I will ban your books if you ban mine. "I will x if you will also x" makes you reactionary and gives agency to someone else to act on your behalf.

“‘I will x if you will also x’ makes you reactionary and gives agency to someone else to act on your behalf.”

This is true to an extent, but I find it unpersuasive. Because it’s basically my main negotiating and parenting technique. I don’t bluff well or frequently. I prefer to lay out the options ahead of time (because I’ve already thought them through) so I can let the other party make an informed decision.

“I will buy this widget for $X. Anything more than that and I will use your competitor / build it in-house.”

“If you clean your room, we’ll get ice cream. Otherwise, no video games today.”

“If you drop a nuclear bomb we will drop our nuclear bombs.”

The catch is that you have to mean it. Which is why I don’t see any real value in bluffing in long-term relationships. We’ve all seen those parents who tell their kids “If you don’t stop doing X right now then Y” and everyone knows (especially the kid) that there will be no follow through.

But predetermining your response doesn’t give away your agency. It’s simply stating in advance how you will respond to others agency in an effort to let them make an informed decision.

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#398

Post by ethanbond »

miracle2k wrote: post #384
ethanbond wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you claim that this app is a national security threat then any app is. How so? Not every app is 1. Owned and controlled by an adversarial state, 2. In the hands of every American youth, and 3. Providing opaquely generated/sorted content. So explain how every app is an equivalent security threat.

The US used to claim a higher moral when others blocked, filtered, or enacted bans by executive fiat. It did so with some justification. Banning an app because you are worried about external cultural influence on your youth ends any such claim.

This is irrelevant to the question I asked.

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#400

Post by [deleted] »

skissane wrote: post #365
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's unfair, but when you defend something for moral reasons or claim to have a moral high ground, you should stick with it even if it's unfair, right? The West has always said that the Chinese bans to Western social media and tech companies were authoritarian and antidemocratic. How is this less so?

> The West has always said that the Chinese bans to Western social media and tech companies were authoritarian and antidemocratic. How is this less so? Policy A: "Any social media platform that refuses to censor opinions the government doesn't like is banned" Policy B: "Foreign social media platforms are only allowed to operate in our country if our own social media platforms are allowed to operate on the same terms…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN