[danimal88]

I have conflicted feelings about this but I do think that the 'spin' is poor. China doesn't allow Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. behind the great firewall. Why not just say we are blocking their pseudo-government social apps to be at economic/market access parity. It seems accurate and fair. Spinning it as national security, while potentially true (really don't know), seems like an unnecessary narrative.

[snazz]

Stooping to China's level by blocking foreign software seems like an admission that the US cannot produce a viable competitor with its much more free market, does it not? If the other side plays dirty, playing dirty ourselves in response seems like a very poor precedent. Restricting the freedom of American citizens to choose a social media app feels like the antithesis of the American free-market ideology, in my opinion.

I'm willing to entertain other ideas, of course, and I'd love to hear any flaws in my logic.

[cwhiz]

The US can, does, and should act reciprocally. In all markets where there are no restrictions in trade or commerce we treat foreign competitors fairly, as we should. In markets where US companies are not treated fairly, we should reciprocate.

In the case of China, American companies are not treated fairly. We should reciprocate. Otherwise it's a lopsided engagement that will eventually result in Chinese corporate dominance. We can't operate in China, but they can operate in the US? No way.

[dmurdoch]

100% this. It's insane to me that some people don't understand this when I discuss it with them.

Potential market share for chinese company: <population of world>

Potential market share for literally any other company: <population of world - population of china>.

Since <population of china> is ~1.4 Billion, and <population of world> is ~7.8 Billion, how does one not understand that a chinese company has an insane and unfair advantage.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> Potential market share for literally any other company: <population of world - population of china>.

China is one of the largest markets for a very large number of Western companies. If you ever go to China, chances are that the taxi that picks you up will be a Volkswagen, and the planes that take you from one city to the next will be made by Boeing or Airbus. You'll see Starbucks, McDonald's and KFC everywhere, and it's likely you'll stay in a Marriott or Hilton. If you go to the mall, you'll see foreign clothing brands everywhere, and the electronics shops will be filled with devices powered by Intel, Micron, Qualcomm, AMD, Nvidia, etc.

> It's insane to me that some people don't understand this when I discuss it with them.

What I don't get is how people believe that foreign companies don't operate in China. Have these people ever been to China?

[snazz]

Apple and Microsoft also operate in China.

[perennate]

Exactly. When the US imposes tariffs on Canadian aluminum, we expect Canada to reciprocate. When China imposes bans on foreign internet service companies, we expect India, the US, and other affected countries to reciprocate.

Failing to reciprocate will merely serve to encourage these bans and lead to a further fragmented internet.

[DiogenesKynikos]

US companies have a massive presence in China, utterly unmatched by the presence of any Chinese company in the US. It now looks more and more like large Chinese tech companies, on the other hand, are de facto banned from the United States. The most egregious case is Huawei, which the US not only banned from its own market, but is actively trying to destroy through sanctions. The US is even threatening foreign companies with sanctions unless they stop doing business with Huawei.

Has China ever done something that drastic to a US company? What $120-billion-revenue, 200k-employee US company has China ever sanctioned out of existence?

The striking thing about this trade war is how little China has retaliated against American companies. China could savage a lot of American tech companies that profit massively off the Chinese market. But the Chinese government appears to hope that the US will come to its senses at some point, and is therefore holding off for the moment.

[drchopchop]

The flaw in your logic is that this is not about competition, it's about the Chinese government having control over the data of mass quantities of American consumers. Picking TikTok as the poster child is a bit arbitrary/capricious, but that doesn't mean there isn't some merit here.

Why should we funnel data from our citizens to hostile foreign adversaries? Additionally, these are adversaries which don't allow any of our major services inside of their repressive firewall.

[Sevii]

China's market is about 4x the US market. It's surprising that any of our software has remained competitive this long when competing with companies serving a captive user share 4x the size of ours.

If you are in a fight and the other guy is playing dirty, not playing dirty is a great way to lose faster.

[jiveturkey]

agree in broad principle, but disagree with the details.

do not impose your western values on China, as the one true morally correct way of life. what China chooses to do is their decision; we are in no position to make any moral judgement on it one way or the other. in fact, in many ways "we" are the morally bankrupt ones. "we" have not just voluntarily, but even eagerly exported slavery to China. it's really great because we can claim a high standard for human rights at home, and ignore them over there.

anyway, it is 100% fair for China to close commerce within China to China-controlled or China-owned companies. this is not dirty behavior, not one bit. i'll go so far as to say, how dare you. it is completely within their right. it is also 100% fair for us (USA) to do so, or not, or to be arbitrarily selective about it.

so your comment also is that this is some kind of retaliation, a tit-for-tat. and that it's a competition for revenue. it is neither. it's recognition that China (the state) is collecting very powerful data on US citizens.

like it or not, we are at war with China. this data collection cannot be allowed.

[TeMPOraL]

> Stooping to China's level by blocking foreign software seems like an admission that the US cannot produce a viable competitor with its much more free market, does it not?

I don't understand why this would be a difficult or controversial admission? It's obviously true, and precisely because China is blocking.

It's like I was to take my co-workers and play a soccer match against FC Barcelona, with a special rule added that our opponents cannot leave their side of the field. FC Barcelona would be right to admit they cannot compete in this game, despite being much more skilled players.

[yorwba]

The problem with that analogy is that Chinese companies are subject to the same bans as foreign companies. TikTok is not allowed to operate in China.

So, the special rule forbidding the FC Barcelona from leaving their side of the field also prevents the team of you and your co-workers from leaving your side.

There are laws in China that explicitly give Chinese companies an advantage (e.g. mining is completely off limits to foreign companies) but internet censorship is not one of those. Chinese companies have to deal with all the same bullshit, and foreign companies who do censor (like Apple and Microsoft) are still competing and doing quite well for themselves.

[Fauntleroy]

This isn't an episode of Star Trek—we can't just take the "higher road" and expect the plot of reality to give us a win. China's been bullying us in the "app game" for a long time by simply disallowing our software in favor of Chinese competitors. What alternatives do we have other than starting to play hardball with them?

[ineedasername]

Realpolitik certainly needs to be a central consideration here, but it still seems a dangerous precedent to say "Americans are not allowed to use this app that facilitates 1st amendment rights".

If the problem is improper collection & use of data, we've be much better served by instituting strict privacy laws than ad-hoc bans by fiat. Even from a realpolitik standpoint, such a course of action has less potential for geo-political fallout because it is backed by legal statute rather than individual interpretation each scenario on the grounds of ill-defined "national security" or parity of trade.

[apta]

It's not about building a viable competitor, it's about banning a regime that forces its companies to give up information at will.

[angio]

China banned these apps because they don't follow the Chinese law in regard to sharing data with the government (FB was banned after some protests where they didn't collaborate with the police). It follows that if the US wanted to ban Chinese apps the same way China does, they would need to either 1) prove that TikTok is breaking the current law 2) pass new, stricter, privacy laws so that TikTok cannot operate/be a threat without breaking the law.

[ahiknsr]

Does Chinese law also allow the government to hack into companies when they don't cooperate with government?

" In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google."

https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...

[sbmthakur]

Companies operating within PRC's borders have it much worse:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/chinas-cybersecurity-law-updat...

[Aunche]

Even if a foreign website complies with all of arbitrary rules in China, the government will ban them with no warning and explanation. Sometimes they get restored, but the damage is already done. Even Apple is not immune and ITunes got shut down in China.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/23/18195200/microsoft-bing-s...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_the_iTunes_Store

[perennate]

Given the arbitrary way in which the CCP laws you mentioned are applied, I don't see any practical difference with the US action. I do agree that the CCP's way gives a better image so that its spokespeople can pretend like they are just upholding the rule of law and hide the reality.

[ixtli]

There’s no real basis for the national security claim https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsand...

[badwolf]

Generally we try to consider ourselves above "an eye for an eye"

[geofft]

Because there's a belief that America's political and economic freedoms make it a better country. If we not only admit that China's authoritarian approach produces better outcomes but also adopt it for ourselves, what is left of America?

China also knows that oppressing an ethnic minority and placing them in forced labor is good for short-term economic success. America did this once, too, also in textiles no less, and concluded the same thing. Shall we go back to it so we can compete with China there too?

[danimal88]

"China also knows that oppressing an ethnic minority and placing them in forced labor is good for short-term economic success"

This actually makes the case for banning their products, not for being above banning their products though, right?

[geofft]

Yes, but as we just saw, that's not what anyone is doing. We're just adopting the state-owned enterprise model.

[shadowgovt]

Probably because the government doesn't actually have the authority under current international or federal law to ban apps for reasons you listed. Apps exist in that weird "code is speech" space and regulation of them can get very nit-picky.

If the intent is to ban them for the reasons you've listed, this is a disingenuous way to go about it and a court might see through the facade.

[danimal88]

Could they not just but an insane tariff on them?

[jeromenerf]

That may just be reasonable but I fear that reason has little importance regarding this tiktok matter. It looks like war on drugs from a distance, just layers of BS and misery.

[pc86]

NS is easier to sell than economic fairness. I think both are probably accurate.