China Hits Out at US Push To Ban TikTok (ft.com) 147
Beijing has hit out at US legislation to ban TikTok as former Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin said he was assembling a consortium to buy the app from its Chinese owner. From a report: Foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said on Thursday that the US had shown a "robber's logic" towards the app (non-paywalled link), which has 170mn users in America. "When you see other people's good things, you must find ways to own them," Wang said.
The US House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a bill that would force TikTok owner ByteDance to sell the app to a non-Chinese company within six months or be banned from US app stores. It still needs Senate approval and President Joe Biden's signature. Mnuchin said in an interview with CNBC on Thursday that he was putting together an investor group to attempt to take over the short-video app. "It's a great business," he said. "It should be owned by a US business. There's no way the Chinese would ever let a US company run something like this in China." He Yadong, spokesperson for the commerce ministry, on Thursday called on Washington to "stop unfairly suppressing foreign companies."
The US House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a bill that would force TikTok owner ByteDance to sell the app to a non-Chinese company within six months or be banned from US app stores. It still needs Senate approval and President Joe Biden's signature. Mnuchin said in an interview with CNBC on Thursday that he was putting together an investor group to attempt to take over the short-video app. "It's a great business," he said. "It should be owned by a US business. There's no way the Chinese would ever let a US company run something like this in China." He Yadong, spokesperson for the commerce ministry, on Thursday called on Washington to "stop unfairly suppressing foreign companies."
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
"It should be owned by a US business. There's no way the Chinese would ever let a US company run something like this in China."
So, we should be more like China... got it...
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean are they wrong?
Global capital markets do operate on a set of established rules and norms and in this case it really feels like China want's a "have cake and eat it too". They want to engage in global markets and all the benefits that come with them but also have strict nationalist/protectionist rules in place and also doesn't want to enforce global norms such as their long time flaunting of IP laws.
This type of thinking historically just leads to a tit-for-tat of restrictions which pretty much ends up in a trade war and that really ends up benefitting nobody. Notice how the US is not threatening anything like this for companies in Europe or Japan or really any other country and that's because those companies follow the norms.
Does that make it right or good? No, but at some point you can't just let China operate on the global stage however they want because they always threaten to take their ball and go home, that's bully behavior and is it known if you just let bullies get away with whatever they want they'll just hit some self enforced limits? No, they will push things further and further as far as anyone else lets them.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Global capital markets do operate on a set of established rules and norms
This is extremely common and typically handled via tariffs. If China won't allow the USA to sell Product A in their country, then the US slaps a tariff on Product B that China sells in the US. The issue here is that with these kinds of online services, the user is the commodity being monetized, so there really isn't much of anything that a tariff can be placed on with TikTok that is direct enough.
Government just hasn't adapted fast enough to figure out how to regulate these newer technologies, so their default action is to ban it entirely.
The point is that this is done with every other type of commodity that exists (IE no one is allowed to import wool into our country, to protect our local production), so it seems reasonable to do it with online services as well.
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
They're just doing another version of the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920), where certain industry is required to be US owned and US operated to be permitted to operate within US.
Jones Act is over a century old, and it's a clear precedent for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Jones Act is over a century old, and it's a clear precedent for this.
I dunno man. Taking something away from someone seems like an extreme measure. It sets all business owners on edge. "When will they take my company from me? What are the exact rules? How do I make a living now? What law did I break? They can do this to me just by voting?"
To me, this is MUCH MUCH uglier than merely banning Tik Tok in the USA. WTF? Can we really just take things from people without any legal framework other than a fucking vote in Congress? Why would anyone choose to do business within the USA
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason why I cited Jones act. You cannot operate shipping between two US ports without US operator, US ownership and US crew. This is so severe of a limitation, that before hitting foreign investors hard, this makes entire state of Hawaii pay way more for any imports from US mainland, as there's exactly one shipping line created specifically to service Hawaii. Which charges hilarious fees. That on top of sorry state of Mississippi delta, which without Jones act would likely be one of the richest i
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect on ownership. US does not require US government ownership or command. PRC requires at least the second, and for critical industries also the first. Specifically CCP does. Also incorrect on "hacking". NSA maintains more offensive hacking capacity than the rest of the world combined to this day.
Jones Act and this legislative package that is being discussed are uniquely US' in terms of culture of governance. They have nothing to do with how CCP does things in PRC and abroad. Ultimately, it's struggle
Re: (Score:2)
Only allowed for smallest of businesses. Everyone else is legally required to have a CCP internal division which is there to monitor the company for compliance with party ideology and empowered to fire anyone if deemed harmful to Party ideology, from janitor up to CEO.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to widely documented things like the fact that CCP requires the internal division in any meaningfully sized company, my "is this a troll or someone who wants to know" test is simple.
Did this person make a search on the topic before asking for "do you have citations, or a study, a peer reviewed study?!" In this case, the answer is obviously "no".
Good effort though.
Re: (Score:2)
China does allow US services to be sold in China though. Microsoft is active there, with Azure cloud and of course Windows. Apple is active there, with iPhone and iCloud and their various media and app stores.
Obviously those companies have to operate their services in accordance with China's laws, which is why Google isn't there as they are unwilling to do so. That's the norm in every country though, they expect adherence to local laws.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean are they wrong?
Legally, no. Morally, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
What is morally wrong about the statement "There's no way the Chinese would ever let a US company run something like this in China."
Re: (Score:2)
The question was: "Were they wrong?", in reference to doing business like China.
The answer is yes, it is wrong for China to do business like that; therefore, it is wrong for us to do business like that.
Legally though, there is plenty of precedent and morally questionable people ready to do business just like China. I mean, a former admin official is gathering up people to buy this company that Congress just forced into selling itself. That doesn't sound REALLY fucking wrong to you? Yeah, I get the excuses f
Re: (Score:2)
The question of " doing business like China" was in fact not asked becuase as you do correctly point out it is a complicated questions, especially in regards to the US where there is a value on protecting even morally questionable decisions so long as they are legal and there isn't really a law on the books against most companies doing business in China. We can take measures to discourage it and be stronger in regards to certain sectors (like semiconductors) but me as an American right now I am more than l
Re: (Score:2)
sorry i brain farted, i thought the sentence read "doing business in China" apologies
Re: So... (Score:2)
Right. Tiktok has been trying to comply with the laws in place currently and the issues brought up specifically about tiktok, but the US government has now basically just come out and said what it wasn't prepared to before. As long as it is Chinese owned, it can't operate in the USA.
Note that the USA has pretty much the same laws, but China allows many USA owned companies to operate in China. And that's not even starting on the superior spying capabilities of the USA, which can make it look like spying orig
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
There's a saying to the effect of "if you think everyone around you is an asshole that means you are probably the asshole"
I think it speaks volumes that outside of say North Korea none of the other countries in the region are fans or allies of China and much happier with the global capitalist hegemony led by the USA.
Much like North Korea if China does in fact not want to play by the norms everyone else does then they don't get to play the game you know? Why would they get special exemptions?
Re: (Score:2)
If China's alternative action to economic sanctioning because they want to circumvent the system everyone else is doing is to become "nuclear terrorists" then they deserve destruction.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a power grab by the Republicans.
Facebook is already right leaning and studies have shown it boosts right wing posts more than left wing ones.
Twitter is owned by Elon Musk, who has some *very* hard right views, and actively works to promote right wing posts on the platform. He deletes notes on right wing posts, and bans left leaning accounts.
Now Trump's ex-Treasury chief wants to buy TikTok. That would give the GOP control of a very large proportion of social media.
They hate TikTok in particular because
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
So, we should be more like China... got it...
The United States is nothing like China.
In China, the government controls the businesses.
Here in the good ole USA, the businesses control the government.
Two completely different things! Share and Enjoy, citizen!
Re: (Score:2)
So, we should be more like China... got it...
The United States is nothing like China.
In China, the government controls the businesses.
Here in the good ole USA, the businesses control the government.
Two completely different things! Share and Enjoy, citizen!
We're just approaching the paradigm from opposite directions. I'd assume eventually there won't be any separation of government and business. It'll just be one big conglomerate of "fuck you" to the commoners within the country. Right now we like that thin veneer of separation so that we can be entertained by the supposed public spats between the two sort of separate entities. Eventually, that'll end. Most likely in the States it'll be the day one of the bigger business entities grows large enough to absorb
Re: (Score:2)
Got it in one!
Well Done.
Re: (Score:2)
Share and Enjoy, citizen!
The kids are saying "like and subscribe" to their customers these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Jokes on you, because in the West, businesses and government are both under control of the same group. It's about 100 people, maybe 200, who make all the decisions and none of them were ever "elected", their tenures never end and the public barely knows a few names of them.
And they managed to make it illegal to mention one thing they all have in common.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, PRC's been using robber logic for decades. It's rare for something developed in China is actually popular in the west.
Next up, start doing the same with games operated by NetEase and MiHoYo (Genshin Impact).
Re: (Score:2)
In this case YES. It's basic self-defense.
Re: (Score:2)
So, we should be more like China... got it...
You're being mindlessly reactionary... got it...
I'm serious. Saying "China does it therefore its bad" as a blanket is just blindly reactionary, and will lead you to absurd places.
China has a terrible record on things like human rights, freedoms and genocide. At that point one ought to think seriously if one is becoming "more like China", but even then it's not a simple "China bad". For example, someone could say, for example "The USA has the highest absolute and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ask about america's record on human rights in South america and other parts of the world.,
It's not a pissing contest.
My entire point is not just having a gut reaction of China does it therefore it's bad, and that applies equally to not having a gut reaction that America did it therefore it's good. Or bad. Actually engage your brain and consider the (de)merits of the proposed actions rather than reaching for emotive shortcuts.
Re: So... (Score:2)
We can talk about it all day, make movies about it, tweet about it But right now we're talking about tictock: can we talk about Winnie the Pooh there? Uyghurs? Tiananmen Square?
If not, China's control is evident. If so,then China should STFU until Tic Tock is accessable on the mainland.
If China does allow Tic Toks about these topics in China, then I will reassess my comfort with this bill (even thought it seems like an ad hoc solution).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"It should be owned by a US business. There's no way the Chinese would ever let a US company run something like this in China."
So, we should be more like China... got it...
Based on the article being discussed, China says no we should not be like them.
Re: (Score:2)
China has banned US social networks for years.. (Score:5, Informative)
China has banned Facebook and other US social networks for years in China. So this is nothing new, and they have nothing to complain about.
There are other reasons that Tic Tok should not be banned (first amendment), the real solution though, is data privacy and data / social network manipulation laws with teeth that apply too all social networks including American ones to ensure data privacy, reduce 'manipulation en masse' by the social network company controlling what 'goes viral' and what doesn't...etc. (dark patterns, control of what you see on the 'feed', shady uses of user data..etc.)
That is the real solution and FB as well as Tic Tok would need to obey such laws with some sort of enforcement mechanism (data is only on shore, or the US portion is run by Americans only..etc). Sort of like what the EU already does with GDPR..
Re:China has banned US social networks for years.. (Score:4, Insightful)
How would you propose to enforce such a "solution" when the foreign company simply refuses to obey? Literally ignores it completely?
Please describe, in detail, how that enforcement would work . . . without a ban.
Re: (Score:2)
In a first step, as the OP already said, start with fair and non-discriminatory rules (as in apply the rules to the likes of Facebook). Then fine them, as EU fines companies that don't obey the local laws, and make fines hurt. Only after that you can talk about bans.
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1 as the OP described would in fact be getting this all into law like the GDPR which also spells out it's enforcement mechanisms which includes fines up to 3% of a companies revenue
Since May 2018, EU member state data regulators have imposed fines on many companies for GDPR violations. Although a majority of these fines have been low in value, the EU has collectively imposed more than €380 million ($417 million) in total fines under GDPR. 1 The second and third largest fines were imposed on U.S.-b
Re: (Score:2)
You fine then with the notice of further consequences if they refuse to pay. The law is built with this scenario in mind and the timeline of what happens after the fine is spelled out. Just like in the example above Marriott is appealing the fine, not refusing it outright because they want to continue business in the EU
Re: (Score:2)
You fine then with the notice of further consequences if they refuse to pay.
What further consequences? More fines they can ignore? Be specific.
Re: (Score:2)
I spelled some out above but sure, here they are again:
- Trade sanctions against said company or the host country of the company in questions, especially if said country has multiple violators.
- Civil or criminal charges against the company and/or officers of the company
- Revocation of passports or travel freedom for said officers of company and employees stationed in the country.
- Foreclosure of business assets and properties inside the country.
- Sanctions that could include stopping any American companies
Re: (Score:3)
Trade sanctions against a Social Network are irrelevant. The thing is just a "social network" and only works over the net. It already doesn't sell any material goods.
Civil and criminal charges against the company and/or officers of the company cannot be enforced.
Most of the concerned individuals (associated with the company) already never travel to the US...most not even out of the country.
Sanctions against US companies doing business with them could work...but enforcement is difficult, and often doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah at the end of the day we are America and not China, we have no Great Firewall and we are not so authoritarian to stop people from accessing things. Obviously I can still reach pirate bay after decades of trying to shutter it.
Sanctions against employees and US companies can have a pretty strong effect on a social network though. If they can only host out of China or Russia and not in the US or have US employees makes it more expensive and just a big pain to keep operating. Social networks are net onl
Re: (Score:2)
All your examples make my case? That the US in fact can exert pressure on Chinese companies like they did with Huawei or CGTN?
Also much like the Great Firewall examples you brought up it's trivial to circumvent despite the laws, it's only there to stop mass circumvention. The face you are aware of it as such means you probably have the means to simply and easily get around that. Region free players are ubiquitous and ripping software is even more ubiquitous.
This is not a good comparison imo.
Re: (Score:2)
- Trade sanctions against said company or the host country of the company in questions, especially if said country has multiple violators.
How, specifically, do those trade sanctions work on an internet company that does not involve a ban? Be specific
- Civil or criminal charges against the company and/or officers of the company
How do you arrest a foreign national in a foreign county that will not cooperate without committing an act of war against a nuclear power? Be specific.
- Revocation of passports or travel freedom for said officers of company and employees stationed in the country.
Since they have dropped all presence in the US, why would they care?
- Foreclosure of business assets and properties inside the country.
Which they may or may not care about, once they're withdrawn all presence from the US - but their app is still available on the internet.
- Sanctions that could include stopping any American companies from doing business with offending companies, non-enforcement of contracts between those entries or fines for companies inside borders for continuing to do business, especially any local hosting or cloud providers, i.e. if Cloudflare wants to keep providing services to TikTok in the US then they get fined too or ordered to cut off service.
- Blocking payment providers and banks from providing any services to said company
How would you block them from using payment
Re: (Score:2)
How do you collect a fine from a foreign company whose government refuses to coperate?
The USA owns the international banking system. The requirement for using the system are strict adherence to US banking regulations.
If a local-only bank wants to do business with a larger bank that does business internationally, it must agree to follow the US rules -otherwise the larger bank risks being cut off from the US-owned international banking system.
Shit flows down hill, basically.
If you are willing to have your business exist only on smaller private interchanges you can ignore US financial regulati
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the EU already has been setting precedent by claiming global jurisdiction over all of any company's activity, assets, and income; even over those that took place, were stored or built, or was earned, outside the EU's borders. And no administration I've seen in DC has ever done anything to counter that (what I consider) extremem overreach.
So maybe we just stop bringing a knife to the gun fight, copy the EU, and decree that we have full jurisdiction over ByteDance no matter where the company, its offic
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the EU already has been setting precedent by claiming global jurisdiction over all of any company's activity, assets, and income; even over those that took place, were stored or built, or was earned, outside the EU's borders. And no administration I've seen in DC has ever done anything to counter that (what I consider) extremem overreach.
And? Do you actually believe the government of China will cooperate with a US claim of worldwide jurisdiction? Are you that deranged?
So maybe we just stop bringing a knife to the gun fight, copy the EU, and decree that we have full jurisdiction over ByteDance no matter where the company, its offices, or its people are; and start seizing their global revenue.
How do you propose to seize money from a Chinese company that is kept in a Chinese bank without the cooperation of the Chinese government?
The US government can, without any cooperation from any other government, ban access to the service from within the US. (Legally, maybe, maybe not, but the mechanism exists.) They do apparently have some presence in the US, but that can be
Re: (Score:2)
Has a foreign company refused to obey a ruling? I must have missed that part.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you propose to enforce such a "solution" when the foreign company simply refuses to obey? Literally ignores it completely?
Please describe, in detail, how that enforcement would work . . . without a ban.
This, not even China can ban western websites and information from breaching the "great" firewall of China. The US has no such thing. Poor attempts to block torrent sites in some western countries have just resulted in people using proxies or VPNs to get torrents... And half the sites aren't even blocked, they blocked TPB and RARBG, however anything more obscure is forgotten about.
The US stands to do little but fall flat on it's face over this, there's an old military adage about not giving an order you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, I don't believe ANY corporations have rights under the 1st amendment. Even in the US a corporation is only a person in certain contexts.
Re: (Score:2)
china also blocks TIKTOK. if you have it, it won't work in mainland or HK.
Throughout my experience on TikTok, it tends to be a lot more like how our US politicians describe the Chinese version, and not anything like how they describe the version available within the US.
There are a good number of other apps that are widely used and developed in other parts of the world as well. The TIKTOK bill made it sound a lot more like the gov could ban anything from vpn's to websites to just an app developed in a countr
Disinformation (Score:2)
China has banned Facebook and other US social networks for years in China. So this is nothing new, and they have nothing to complain about.
You premise is totally false.
* If China does not allow US social networks, how can LinkedIn operate there for year [linkedin.com]? Is LinkedIn a Chinese company?
* If China does not allow US internet company, why did US lawmakers urge Bing to pull out of China [bloomberg.com]? Is Bing a Chinese search engine?
* If China bans Google, why did Google waste time and money creating Project Dragonfly [wikipedia.org]?
Maybe I can give you some hints: Microsoft and Apple agree to abide Chinese laws, just like Toyota North America agrees to abide American labor and
Rep. Mike Gallagher spills the beans (Score:5, Informative)
I usually don't post twitter links
https://twitter.com/mtracey/st... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the point of US-style fascism was the the government couldn't control the people: The food, environment, water and electricity, banking and finance, air travel, pharmaceuticals, construction, motor vehicles, air waves and criminals, they control but not the people, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I won't give permission to ads-twitter.com to run javascript so I am unable to see what you have linked. Can you give a summary please?
Methinks (Score:2)
Classic pot, kettle, black (Score:5, Interesting)
In addition to banning US social media, ANY foreign company requires 51% Chinese ownership to operate inside China.
Maybe they're like it if we only forced a 51% sale. To the US get (hah!) the same as foreign companies have to do there.
So the US Gvt would run the Chinese created app, get all the benefits from it, for half price, and deny the Chinese any benefits.
Tit, meet my friend Tat.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Too little, too late. Locking the front door behind you after you've cleaned out someone's home doesn't suddenly make you not a criminal.
The only reason for such an action is foreign companies finally got a clue and decided to stop funding their own foreign competition who would steal their stuff and then undercut them on the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Misinformed or lying (Score:2)
"It's a great business," he said. "It should be owned by a US business. There's no way the Chinese would ever let a US company run something like this in China."
In addition to banning US social media, ANY foreign company requires 51% Chinese ownership to operate inside China.
* Is Microsoft [bloomberg.com] 51% owned by Chinese?
* Is Tesla [wikipedia.org] 50% owned by China?
* Is Cayman [wikipedia.org] Islands [wikipedia.org] part of China's territory now?
* Are Sequoia Capital, SoftBank et. al. [wikipedia.org] owned by China too?
* Is 88% smaller than 49% [wikipedia.org]?
ByteDance's owners include its founders and Chinese investors (20%), global investors (60%), and employees (20%).[33] In 2021, the state-owned China Internet Investment Fund purchased a 1% stake in ByteDance's main Chinese subsidiary, Beijing ByteDance Technology (formerly Beijing Douyin Information Service)
Around 44% of Alibaba shares are held by the general public and around 40% are held by institutions. Around 14% are hold by SoftBank Group.
Apparently, majority of the Chinese hi-tech companies are actually owned by foreigners and incorporate in Cayman Islands. Unfortunately, those foreigners are not you but the top 1% in your country. I guess you can blame China for that.
Oh... the Joint Venture requirements? They are implemented by all developing [sdsu.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Chinese 50 cent shill. The exception does not make the rule and if we look at those companies you list in detail, it's really weird how they all have Chinese competition now using their own technology for the tech orient companies. Tesla spent years to create a modern EV from nothing. Out of nowhere we now see a bunch of Chinese clones. They might as well just stamp Tesla on their cars if they wanted to be honest about it (hah, right).
Maybe you'd like to comment on Arm China essentially getting stolen
Re: (Score:2)
So you changed your pitch from "blocking entry" to "stealing tech" (*). Typical of American shills -- keep changing the narratives,
* as if the US didn't commit that in its history or YouTube short didn't copy TikTok. And neither this claim is true as foreign companies have a very favorable win rate in the Chinese patent courts. Of course, your media never told you these.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing changed. Your CCP masters are guilty of both and Ms y other things.
And then you deflect with a bad case of whataboutism whining like a commie bitch about how someone copied a feature as if that is the same as flat out stealing core tech or an entire company like Arm.
Thank you for such a weak defense. Be careful not to claim your 50 cents on that post or you might find yourself on a surgical table having your organs removed to extend the miserable life of some octogenarian Party leader.
Re: (Score:2)
Answered elsewhere to a real person not some AC CCP shill. The rest of your clone cowards ignored.
The irony is thick this morning (Score:3)
"When you see other people's good things, you must find ways to own them,"
This, from a communist government.
Re: (Score:2)
With a reputation for knockoff copies, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more of the core value of communism that there's no such thing as private property; everything belongs to the state.
But yeah, that, too.
Unintended consequences (Score:2)
Re:Unintended consequences-or is it? (Score:2)
@RobertGC2001
Really just need one page.
“We ban usage of TikTok in the United States until they divest from the CCP.”
Anything more is something different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly, this is a very slippery slope. Then you have presidents banning foreign platforms because they have political leanings that hinder their party or chances at being reelected, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
>hinder their party
When the vote only has 62 opposing votes in the House of reps, it's fair to say this is bipartisan and might actually be a reasonable course
Re: (Score:2)
To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.
I kind of agree with China on this one. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that is EXACTLY what China does to any American or European company that wants to do business in China, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except we are not China...
Re: (Score:2)
No, we're not. But this story boils down to China getting upset that they are being made to play by their own rules.
Re: (Score:2)
All the usual talking heads (Score:2)
It's not a TikTok ban (Score:2)
It's fairly reasonable if you ask me. Having a semi-hostile foreign nation with that much access to your citizens information isn't a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a semi-hostile foreign nation with that much access to your citizens information isn't a good idea.
You mean the same information that users willingly post online for everyone to see and is accessible by anyone or any govt that bothers to look at it? You mean that information?
He's not wrong, China would NEVER allow this! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The US seems to do a lot less with regards to Russian use of social media for agitprop campaigns against Americans.
DeAmericanize (Score:3)
Pretty sure I read an article on Slashdot that China was making a push to "DeAmerican-ize" it's economy. So the US is just trying to deChina-ize it's economy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting anything. I am saying there was an article saying as much. But beyond that, how many yen were you paid to write that?
Quoth the Communist: (Score:3)
"When you see other people's good things, you must find ways to own them," Wang said.
So it's okay for farms, heavy industry, neighboring republics, and the South China Sea..., but _not_ a platform for cat videos. Making someone give that up would be _wrong_.
America values fairness ... (Score:2)
... in that spirit, Facebook, Instagram, X, Microsoft, Apple, and other Big Tech should sell off their markets in every country outside its own borders.
'Splain me, Lucy ... (Score:2)
I'm looking at the solution offered where American investors buy TikTok. How would that work? Does China own the product, support it, and roll out updates? Would that necessary technical backend be sold to America as well? Don't copyright protect that stuff?
WTF logic is that? (Score:2)
The US does not want to 'own it'. They just need you (China) to NOT own it because you're evil dictators spying on everyone and collecting information by the truckload for unknown (and probably nefarious given your track record) purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't imprison people based on religion and 'disappear' people who disagree with the government. They don't kidnap tourists and claim they're spies. They don't ethnically cleanse neighboring countries.
China does all those things, and even admits it to an extent. They're fucking evil. If you think the US is worse than China you're evil too.
China "Hits out" at US... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing so just makes everything worse.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because China is a shitty fascist dictatorship, that does not mean that WE have to operate at their level. Jesus fucking Christ what is going with this country? Why are INTERNAL forces trying to destabilize us more than external forces are?
(all communications have been compromised. it would take an entire series of books to properly define what is meant by "fascist dictatorship". this is by design. it makes communication impossible so we can never agree and work together.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish the U.S. Government would outlaw FaceBook.