[bjourne]

The point is that justice is blind, i.e., just. You can't have a law that says if your name is "bjourne" you get to do X, but if your name is "sensanaty" that is forbidden. So if the law privilege the oligarch living in your country over the foreign oligarch, justice is not blind, justice is jingoistic. That path leads to fascism. You might be fine with that because it doesn't affect you, for now, but sooner or later, unless stopped, the fascists will fuck you too.

[corimaith]

That's like saying the notion of "citizenship" (which serves to discriminate between in-group and out-group) is the "path" to fascism. That's literally how ever nation-state in this world works, we live in a world of sovereign states where the applicability of law only exists in the context of each individual sovereign. Non-Citizens are not afforded the same rights as Citizens. And Citizens pledge allegiance to solely their Sovereigns against other Sovereigns.

If you don't like this, you are free to forgoe your citizenship and the benefits of the protection of the state to live statelessly.

[bjourne]

Since corporations are not "citizens" the issue has nothing to do with citizenship. It makes sense that laws sometimes discriminate between citizens and non-citizens, just like they discriminate between adults and children. For example, when it comes to immigration and freedom of movement. But that is not an argument for arbitrarily discriminatory laws. A foreigner and a citizen convicted of murder gets the same punishment. A Chinese oligarch owning TikTok is no more of a threat to "American democracy" (or whatever, not like there's much left of it) than Elon Musk owning Twitter is.

[corimaith]

>But that is not an argument for arbitrarily discriminatory laws. A Chinese oligarch owning TikTok is no more of a threat to "American democracy" (or whatever, not like there's much left of it) than Elon Musk owning Twitter is.

It's not arbitrarily discriminatory. It is intentionally discriminatory. As a citizen of USA, Elon Musk has sworn total allegiance to the United States and abjures any loyalty to any previous sovereign. Now whether you agree or not on his interpretation that he is acting within the interests of the USA and it's constitution is the function of the political process, of which his allegiance is the prerequisite to participate in, and his acquisence to the monopoly on violence by the US Gov.

A Chinese oligarch living in China has not sworn his allegiance to the United States, his allegiance explicitly lies in total loyalty to the Sovereign of China, and by extension, the CCP. If the interests of China and USA were to be opposed, by definition the Chinese Oligarch will support the interests of China over the USA. And right now, the CCP and USA are very much in strategic competition. Nor does the USA have any ability to enforce on it's laws on someone living in China as opposed to USA.

[bjourne]

Elon Musk has three citizenships, American, Canadian, and South African. Your assertion that he somehow would be more trustworthy because he is an American is ludicrous.

Ever since the Code of Hammurabi justice has been based on the principle of equal treatment. That is, if you commit a crime the punishment should be metered out based on the crime and not your identity. The TikTok ban violates this principle because it discriminates based on identity. It makes no sense that it would be a greater crime for a Chinese businessman to own a social media network than it is for an American businessman.

In fact, if we look at the evidence, Musk has leveraged his control over Twitter to bolster neo-Nazi propaganda, silence his critics, and promote European right-wing parties. No such evidence exist for TikTok. If you are willing to overlook this evidence because "China man bad" then that indeed does make you a racist.