[simonsarris]

You mean with DJI? It's not remotely symmetrical. The US does not prohibit DJI from buying US parts to use in their drones. The US do not prohibit US citizens from buying DJI drones. Only the US Dept of Defense is prohibited from buying DJI equipment.

The US does this because DJI is considered a Chinese Military Company [1] (nb that DJI disputes this and asked to be removed from the list). China is sanctioning Skydio because they sold some drones to Taiwan.

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jan/31/2003384819/-1/-1/0/126...

[mightyham]

Last month the U.S. House of Representatives voted to "bar new drones from Chinese drone manufacturer DJI from operating in the United States"[1], and even more recently there has been reports that customs is, using some arguably phony justifications, holding up imports of DJI drones[2].

While you are right that the US has not fully passed and officially enforced a country-wide DJI ban, saying that the US is "just" banning DJI usage by the dept of defense, ignores a number of developments suggesting that the US is in the process of a more expansive ban.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-votes-bar-new-dron... [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-customs-halting-some-dro...

[mightyham]

I'll also add that earlier this year, the US put a number of Chinese consumer technology companies, including DJI, on a public blacklist that designates them as "Chinese military companies". This is a clear use of the United States' diplomatic power to hurt and discredit Chinese tech businesses. Whether the US should be doing that is another issue. At the end of the day these sorts events are a common biproduct of large power politics, but the point is that China's actions are not unwarranted.

[Spooky23]

The house they always passes legislation that will never be implemented to support the base or send a message.

That signal only has meaning if the Senate or administration takes it up. For example, before the great flip of segregation advocates, the house passed legislation making lynching a federal crime for nearly 50 years. The Senate never allowed it to leave committee for a vote.

The meaning of the signal is unclear without understanding the dynamics. The MAGA idiots control it, so there’s a lot of performative legislation to keep the crowd occupied.

[mightyham]

You would have to be naive to think that a house bill banning consumer drones is about "supporting the base". The prevalence of Chinese goods in the US is not a popular or even very partisan issue. The actions being taken against DJI has everything to do with the United States' strategic economic and military objectives.

[threatofrain]

Arguably sanctions poker should be played asymmetrically until one side folds due to uneven damage. If both sides play for even damage then neither side should sanction.

[aurareturn]

I mean in general, starting with Huawei.

[simne]

Huawei got sanctions after catch on spy activity.

Who else you know?

[maxglute]

Huawei got entity listed for selling to Iran (which Nokia and many other western companies does as well). There has never been any evidence proving Huawei espionage activity, which it can obviously be used for. Only Huawei gear has enabled foreign govs to undermine US espionage / influence efforts, iirc Huawei tech helping some african country using lawful intercept technologies to bust US aligned activists.

[ganeshkrishnan]

Likewise skydio got sanctions after arming Taiwan. Can you arm Russia from within US without sanctions?

[simne]

Nobody said about sanctions after arming Taiwan. It is just your guess. But about sanctions against Huawei, exists juridical cases and official statements.

Could you remember any case where US use sanctions without juridical case?

[ganeshkrishnan]

I could make up judicial cases and sanctions galore.. It's the reason why wto exists.

Huawei is neither sanctioned by wto nor Europe (till 2029) or any other part of the world