[cherryteastain]

The point is that the West painted itself as the defender of freedom, democracy and free markets. Going beyond, it claimed that (in the post Reagan/Thatcher era) that free markets are a prerequisite for being a rich country. Yet, the moment free markets became inconvenient, the west dropped that narrative and went full protectionist. As a result, China gets a propaganda victory in the eyes of non-Western nations.

All things considered, it's a minor problem for the US/West. Just looking like hypocrites. Compared to, say, the 2003 Iraq war it's a nothingburger.

[TulliusCicero]

It's not hypocrisy to expect free trade to go both ways.

China blocks many major Western websites and apps. Reciprocating is far from unfair: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_...

[WillPostForFood]

West painted itself as the defender of freedom, democracy and free markets

China is not free, not a democracy, and not a free market, so there no hypocrisy. What was crazy was supporting the one sided relationship where we export our industry and production capacity to China while they block and steal from our businesses.

I'd support TikTok in the US if China gets rid of their firewall.

[JumpCrisscross]

> looking like hypocrites

This is the paradox of tolerance [1]. It’s a worn discussion and far from hypocritical.

In any case, I’d rather be right than consistent. Particularly when it comes to the survival and wellbeing of our people and allies. More pointedly when the other side is a dictatorship.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[cherryteastain]

That's the exact argument e.g. Turkey used to ban Wikipedia/Youtube/Twitter etc.

Make of that what you will.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the exact argument e.g. Turkey used to ban Wikipedia/Youtube/Twitter etc.

Which one(s)? (Genuinely curious.)

Also, was it a ban or divestment requirement? What wins me over on this bill is it isn’t a ban. It isn’t even a requirement to be controlled by an American. ByteDance could sell TikTok to a Korean or Hugarian or Middle Eastern country—even Turkey—and be in compliance with the law.

[cherryteastain]

This one:

> I’d rather be right than consistent. Particularly when it comes to the survival and wellbeing of our people

Turkey's constitution also guarantees free speech etc. However, there are also laws that say you cannot insult people's religious sensibilities or serve sexually explicit content. The motivation for these laws is that this type of content degrades the moral fabric of society.

Politicians whipped up moral panics and judges (who were in many cases appointed by those very same politicians) issued rulings requiring these platforms to remove the offending content. The platforms refused, and were banned. When people argued the bans were against constitutional freedoms, the counter-arguments were always some flavor of "it's more important to prevent the moral degeneration of the country".

[JumpCrisscross]

> When people argued the bans were against constitutional freedoms, the counter-arguments were always some flavor of "it's more important to prevent the moral degeneration of the country"

When the facts change our opinions should, too. I used to be a free-trade absolutist. It’s become clear that doesn’t work.

I remain a strong free-speech advocate. Which is why I was against Trump’s proposed TikTok ban. This, however, is different. There is an out in divestment—to an American or non-American. And even if ByteDance refuses to sell, TikTok.com won’t be blocked. Moreover, the entire process is subject to judicial oversight. If ByteDance’s Constitutional rights are being abrogated, they have a forum in which to find relief.

Turkey’s tale is cautionary. We should be mindful when we find we were previously wrong. But I think this is different. Free trade (in its absolute sense) isn’t a core American value. Free speech is. The First Amendment protects ByteDance’s speech. It does not guarantee its distribution.