[_lsq]

No it's not.

The Chinese government sets their (extremely authoritarian) rules on censorship for companies to legally operate in China but the rules apply to everyone equally.

Chinese companies of course have to comply, but foreign companies have the choice to comply or not. Google chose to comply initially but decided to pull out later on. Microsoft/Apple choose to comply and are still operating in significant ways in China.

In contrast, US is proposing to ban TikTok, Huawei, DJI without clear rules: the reason to ban these companies is that they are Chinese companies. In other words, Chinese companies are "born a crime" to the US in the current climate, without the need to show what rules are violated or evidence of wrongdoing.

China also doesn't have the monopolistic power in tech that the US does: forbidding Google to operate in China it's not the same as forcing app stores to de-list certain apps globally.

It's even more absurd to force ByteDance to sell their US business to a US company. If the US feels justified that this could be done on "national security" ground, why shouldn't EU do the same to US tech companies?

I do hope that US citizens see that for much of the world, US is no longer the champion of free market, promoter of free-speech or guardian of world-order. All that matters is if these values benefit US economically or politically.

The US lost it when Japan was economically sanctioned for its competitive auto/electronic sector in 1980s. China is taking the same heat today and India would be the next target if India were to want to play its role on the international stage. The best outcome for the world would be to have multiple strong economies globally that keep each other in check; rather than one country having monopolistic power over all globally significant online forums.

[ethbro]

> The Chinese government sets their (extremely authoritarian) rules on censorship for companies to legally operate in China but the rules apply to everyone equally.

Censorship requirements are the least restrictive Chinese law.

Look at industries where foreign companies are outright restricted (must form non controlling joint venture with local partner) or prohibited from operating in: http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policyrelease/aaa/20120...

See: "Catalogue of Restricted Foreign Investment Industries" and "Catalogue of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries"

[geokon]

It's cool you linked a first hand source! But what are you trying to point out specifically? A quick look seems the list is rather reasonable and not very long. It's some "cultural heritage" stuff like tea, ceramics, etc... some military related things and a very limited subset of resource extraction and chemical/biomedical production (things that aren't cutting edge from what I can tell)

Am I looking at the wrong part?

[ethbro]

Catalogue of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries

X. Art, Sports and Entertainment Industries

1. News agencies 2. Business of publishing, producing, master issuing, and importing of books, newspaper and periodical 3. Business of publishing, producing, master issuing and importing of audio and visual products and electronic publications 4. Radio stations, TV stations, radio and TV transmission networks at various levels (transmission stations, relaying stations, radio and TV satellites, satellite up-linking stations, satellite receiving stations, microwave stations, monitoring stations, cable broadcasting and TV transmission networks) 5. Companies of publishing and playing of broadcast and TV programs 6. Companies of films making, issuing, business 7. News website, network audiovisual service, on line service location, internet art management 8. Construction and management of golf course 9. Gambling industry (including gambling turf) 10. Eroticism

Nice to know the Chinese Communist Golf Course lobby is alive and effective though! :)

[hakka-nyu-su]

Yeah, the tea and herbs part is the first part, near the middle and end you start to see things like heavy industry.

There's a Marxist concept called "commanding heights of the economy" which refers to things like public utilities and transportation.

Theoretically a socialist government can retain control of this limited set of industries while letting foreign capital develop the others, so that the capital can't totally control the government.

[pbhjpbhj]

If (!) the government were democratic that would seem sensible, otherwise Capitalists get to control the government and the demos rule is subverted.

[_lsq]

I'm definitely not saying that the Chinese government is in anyway a good example worthy of our compliments. That discussion however is off topic here.

If the US were prepared to backtrack on its reputation as the leader of free market then the US could instate equivalent laws in the US: "telecom equipment must be domestically manufactured by local businesses or by companies jointly owned by American citizens" would be a generically enforceable law, that's equivalent to what you cited. Huawai would have no option other than to comply and exit the US market or find local partners.

The problem is that's not what the US is proposing to do; rather the US is making unsubstantiated claims that ALL Chinese companies are born a crime and should not operate in the US in any meaningful way.

[Aunche]

> Google chose to comply initially but decided to pull out later on.

Yeah because the Chinese government hacked them. Do they hack Chinese companies equally?

[tatrajim]

| Microsoft/Apple choose to comply

And look how Apple was treated. In 2015 their iBooks and iTunes Movies stores were first approved, but then six months later suddenly banned without warning or explanation. Why should China be surprised if the US reciprocates?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/apple-no-longe...

[treis]

>. In other words, Chinese companies are "born a crime" to the US in the current climate, without the need to show what rules are violated or evidence of wrongdoing.

The problem isn't that their Chinese. It's that they have implicit and explicit support from the Chinese government that give them a leg up on non-Chinese companies.

[_lsq]

The statement "they have implicit and explicit support from the Chinese government" is really indistinguishable from "the problem is they are Chinese".

[Wolfenstein98k]

Only so long as that is their policy.

The problem isn't the ethnicity or country per se, it's the state-partnership and monopoly system (intertwining them with a totalitarian regime persecuting a million Uighurs in realtime).

[_lsq]

What does ByteDance has to do with the persecution of Uighurs more than what Amazon/Google/Microsoft has to do with the killing in Iraq/Iran/Middle East incurred by the US? I don't have evidence for the latter but it seems like neither do you for the former?

The founder of ByteDance has on multiple accounts critised the Chinese government: this is not an easy thing to do in China but blaming Chinese government's behaviors on a privately owned tech startup is a bit over the top.

[Wolfenstein98k]

One reports to the government censor, including the dates of children in other countries, in service of current human rights atrocities.

The other does not, and the atrocities (arguably incomparable) are in the past tense.

Iraq was terrible, but it is not the ongoing forced sterilisation and enslavement of Uighurs.

[_lsq]

I think it's not very productive to discuss if one form of atrocity is worse than the other. It's terrible that we have to compare them at all.

Just like I wouldn't blame US's actions in the middle east on Amazon/Google; I don't see why it's fair to associate ByteDance with what's happening to Uighurs.

There are many things going wrong in the world, the question is if we are on the right path towards solving them. I would argue the current escalation is not helping but rather stir up tribalism which is not going to be our solution.

[pbhjpbhj]

Isn't that exactly what USA are doing for USA companies, eg trying to force UK to buy USA comms equipment (giving USA backdoors too presumably).

[treis]

They are doing similar things in specific cases on national security grounds but it's not the broad policy that China has.