House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell
#2As a parent who occasionally monitors the trends in genZ social media, I'm super interested to see how this would shape US culture, post-ban. TikTok and shorts are _huge_, if not the predominant driver of memetic trends, business and communication.
Instagram has Reels, and I'd only suspect that many would migrate there? Very interesting time to observe.
Re: House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell
#3> The answer to CCP-style propaganda is not CCP-style oppression. Let us slow down before we blunder down this very steep and slippery slope.
There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. It's like claiming we should have factories using wage labor competing with slave labor out of 'fairness'. It's not a fair playing field when one side of the equation is more than a firm, but rather an entire government. Governments are distinct from firms in that they (1) hold territory and (2) can use coercion and violence legally without any resort. When you have a firm owned / controlled by a government, there is no 'free' market they can engage in with American companies. There is always some imbalance of power without recourse. We've seen this in many instances with the CCP in particular, where Chinese subsidiaries 'go rogue' or IP is stolen.
In order to access the American market, there should be a requirement that firms are not government controlled.
Re: House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell
#4As a parent who occasionally monitors the trends in genZ social media, I'm super interested to see how this would shape US culture, post-ban. TikTok and shorts are _huge_, if not the predominant driver of memetic trends, business and communication. Instagram has Reels, and I'd only suspect that many would migrate there? Very interesting time to observe.
Most likely Reels and YT Shorts.
The same thing happened in India in 2020 after their Chinese app ban which included PUBG and Genshin as well.
Re: House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell
#5> The answer to CCP-style propaganda is not CCP-style oppression. Let us slow down before we blunder down this very steep and slippery slope. There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. It's like claiming we should have factories using wage labor competing with slave labor out of 'fairness'. It's not a fair playing field when one side of the equation is more than a firm, but rather an entire go…
> There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists.
This is simply untrue. People wouldn't buy the product if it wasn't the best bang for the buck. Here "buying" is done with quantities of personal data.
Does it help that TikTok costs are subsidized by a gov entity and therefore they can operate with lower revenue? Probably. Are consumers still getting the best deal? Absolutely.
TikTok isn't a mysterious product. People know what they're getting and what they're giving to get it. Stop removing agency from folks and realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market.
Re: House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell
#6> The answer to CCP-style propaganda is not CCP-style oppression. Let us slow down before we blunder down this very steep and slippery slope. There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. It's like claiming we should have factories using wage labor competing with slave labor out of 'fairness'. It's not a fair playing field when one side of the equation is more than a firm, but rather an entire go…
> There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. This is simply untrue. People wouldn't buy the product if it wasn't the best bang for the buck. Here "buying" is done with quantities of personal data. Does it help that TikTok costs are subsidized by a gov entity and therefore they can operate with lower revenue? Probably. Are consumers still getting the best deal? Absolutely. TikTok isn't a myster…
Consumers are getting a fine deal. The competing producers (or potential producers) are not. Given that, in the united states, its not just consumers who vote, since all citizens have a right to start and own a business, the American government must represent the interests of both American consumers AND (potential) producers.
> TikTok isn't a mysterious product. People know what they're getting and what they're giving to get it. Stop removing agency from folks and realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market.
In the same way that no American has a 'right' to buy products produced by slave labor, I contend that Americans have no right to buy products produced by government controlled corporations. The free market is for private players on a similar playing field. Unless we let all corporations have militaries and declare sovereignty, I don't believe there's any right to do business with communists.
As a free-market enthusiast and a light libertarian, the non-agression principle applies equally to foreign governments as my own. Since I cannot vote out the communists, I can simply choose to not engage. At some point libertarians and free-marketers need to stop being selective as to which entities their principles get applied to. It's not a good look
Re: House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. This is simply untrue. People wouldn't buy the product if it wasn't the best bang for the buck. Here "buying" is done with quantities of personal data. Does it help that TikTok costs are subsidized by a gov entity and therefore they can operate with lower revenue? Probably. Are consumers still getting the best deal? Absolutely. TikTok isn't a myster…
Consumers are getting a fine deal. The competing producers (or potential producers) are not. Given that, in the united states, its not just consumers who vote, since all citizens have a right to start and own a business, the American government must represent the interests of both American consumers AND (potential) producers. > TikTok isn't a mysterious product. People know what they're getting and what they're givin…
> Since I cannot vote out the communists, I can simply choose to not engage.
You're not simply not engaging. You're also trying to prevent others from engaging, where the justification is that you want to prevent others from engaging because of uneven competitive costs.
The extension of that principle is that we should ban anyone from Iceland because they have nearly free electricity and so it's unfair that they can run data centers cheaper that US based ones. Or any country with welfare that enables them to hire for cheaper, since that is a direct gov subsidy.
We typically focus on consumers from a market competition regulation perspective because that is where price matters. Anyone that can't compete simply can't. If TikTok raises prices, it means someone can move in and undercut them, so there is incentive to keep prices low. We don't want to limit competition because it leads to worse outcomes. Look at the Jones act or the Chicken Tax as examples.
Re: House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell
#8[dupe]
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39691808
Re: House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. This is simply untrue. People wouldn't buy the product if it wasn't the best bang for the buck. Here "buying" is done with quantities of personal data. Does it help that TikTok costs are subsidized by a gov entity and therefore they can operate with lower revenue? Probably. Are consumers still getting the best deal? Absolutely. TikTok isn't a myster…
Consumers are getting a fine deal. The competing producers (or potential producers) are not. Given that, in the united states, its not just consumers who vote, since all citizens have a right to start and own a business, the American government must represent the interests of both American consumers AND (potential) producers. > TikTok isn't a mysterious product. People know what they're getting and what they're givin…
Communism isn't the problem here and it'd do you well to build an argument that isn't backed by that at every turn.
Re: House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell
#10> The answer to CCP-style propaganda is not CCP-style oppression. Let us slow down before we blunder down this very steep and slippery slope. There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. It's like claiming we should have factories using wage labor competing with slave labor out of 'fairness'. It's not a fair playing field when one side of the equation is more than a firm, but rather an entire go…
> There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. This is simply untrue. People wouldn't buy the product if it wasn't the best bang for the buck. Here "buying" is done with quantities of personal data. Does it help that TikTok costs are subsidized by a gov entity and therefore they can operate with lower revenue? Probably. Are consumers still getting the best deal? Absolutely. TikTok isn't a myster…
> TikTok isn't a mysterious product
False. It is mysterious.
Where is TikTok's source? Is TikTok recommendation model open sourced?
> Stop removing agency from folks
Welcome to living in a society with a govt. that has to think of the greater society's welfare in the future.
> realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market.
Are we ignoring how better products failed due to stealing by CCP companies (e.g., Huawei stealing from Nortel Networks and Cisco)?