14 ms·

I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. We can make similar arguments about t

I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. We can make similar arguments about the negative effects of Facebook, Instagram, and etc. even from the POVs of other countries, but the key issue here is that China heavily restricts foreign apps and services from operating in their market. If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market?

aprilthird2021 3y ago
>If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? Because we are (used to be?) a country that believes in democracy and the will of our citizens. If people want to download a Chinese app and watch straight up Chinese news and propaganda (not even close to what TikTok actually is), they should be allowed to do so. That's the entire idea of the First Amendment... Does that put us at a disadvantage to countries who don't have the same rules? Maybe. But that ideal and that principle is valuable and means something and IS the entire bedrock of American influence over the greater world.
- ThisIsMyAltAcct 3y ago
  Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
  - bluefishinit 3y ago
    This level of censorship isn't good, it's very bad. It's also concerning the speed at which the government mobilized to do this. It's a rapid crackdown on free speech and individual freedom.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > censorship Nothing is being censored. If ByteDance refuses to sell, TikTok will be removed from App Stores and have to find new web hosting. TikTok.com will still resolve fine.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        > Nothing is being censored. If ByteDance refuses to sell, TikTok will be removed from App Stores What if Google says no?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > What if Google says no? Same as if Google says no to paying taxes. Law enforcement mediated by the courts.
        falcolas 3y ago
        The fines end up being in the billions of dollars - $5,000 per user per day. Even Google can't absorb that for long.
      - nomel 3y ago
        Could you help me understand how that isn't censorship, with more steps?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Could you help me understand how that isn't censorship Censorship bans the speech. If we were censoring Bytedance, we’d block TikTok.com. This is more in the vein of “you can’t advertise your brothel at the elementary school.” You can still advertise your brothel. The distribution and amplification is just being regulated.
        codedokode 3y ago
    - EGG_CREAM 3y ago
      Trump tried to do this 4 years ago, how is that a "concerning" level of speed? The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has been reviewing Tik Tok's Project Texas initiative to handle US data separately for 2 years. This was not an out of the blue move. The citation for those claims are in the linked article.
- lagichikool 3y ago
  I'd wager that most Americans want fairness in relationships with other countries. And also want the government to protect them against hostile foreign governments that wish to do them harm. Americans subject themselves to all kinds of restrictions in terms of what can be imported into the US. There's no contradiction of the freedoms protected by US Constitution in this. There's certainly no information that Americans need deny themselves by insisting that apps like TikTok are not controlled by hostile foreign governments.
- digging 3y ago
  > If people want to download a Chinese app and watch straight up Chinese news and propaganda ... That's the entire idea of the First Amendment... > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Arguably it's not even one part of the 1st.
  - potatototoo99 3y ago
    Freedom of speech includes not being prohibited from listening to other people's speech.
    - mckn1ght 3y ago
      The first amendment in the bill of rights in the US constitution prevents the US government from restricting the speech of US citizens. It doesn’t say anything about foreign nationals with no status in the US. The government also has the authority to deport whomever it likes, impose tariffs and restrict imports. Regardless of moral stance, that is the reality as I see it.
      - BeetleB 3y ago
        > The first amendment in the bill of rights in the US constitution prevents the US government from restricting the speech of US citizens. It also applies to foreigners who are in the US legally.
        mckn1ght 3y ago
        I mentioned status of foreign nationals in the very next sentence, and it sounds like TikTok’s status is about to become “unwelcome.”
      - StarCyan 3y ago
        The first amendment prevents the US govt from restricting the speech of anyone in the US, not just citizens. For example, the government cannot deport an immigrant simply because they criticized the government (they can deport for a variety of other reasons though).
- blackbear_ 3y ago
  Any suggestions for dealing with the paradox or tolerance [1]? Or an argument why it does not apply? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- ericmcer 3y ago
  I agree with this in principal, but in practice it seems troubling to have every person (even beyond kids) hooked on a stream of info that is controlled by a foreign government who doesn't like us very much. If your plan is that people should be strong enough to uninstall or smart enough to recognize subtle propaganda, that seems very likely to fail.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    The premise of strong freedom of speech rights is that the government being smart enough to decide what is illegal propaganda may fail as well, sometimes more catastrophically.
    - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
      [dead]
- 6DM 3y ago
  Regarding GP's argument, I would argue it's less about freedom of speech and more about trade protection. Although software is not a physical good, letting another country restrict us and simultaneously flood our market is not good either.
- tcptomato 3y ago
  This isn't a First Amendment issue, it's regulating commerce with a foreign nation.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    What is the nature of that commerce? I don't think you can ablate the 1A concerns this easily. (Note that I am sympathetic to the idea that TikTok is a source of foreign influence. But it's not clear to me what precedent allows the US congress to control their ownership without doing the same to every "US" corporation that's incorporated in Ireland.)
  - codedokode 3y ago
    So if TikTok was not earning any profit from US (for example, if it was sponsored by the govt), there would be no commerce and it would not be banned? I do not believe that.
    - darcagn 3y ago
      Profit is not the standard for the regulation of commerce in the United States though. When the federal government set limits on crop production with the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause as its justification, Roscoe Filburn was simply growing wheat over the limit to feed his farm animals. That wheat was never sold, and it never crossed the property line to leave his farm, much less crossed state lines. The government still fined him and he lost his case in SCOTUS establishing precedent in Wickard v. Filburn, because it affected the market prices of wheat, despite the miniscule impact. The same could be said of TikTok even if it doesn't earn a penny in profit.
      - codedokode 3y ago
        That's interesting. Never thought that in a "free" country the govt can ban people from growing wheat.
- tempsy 3y ago
  I find it really interesting how being against a ban is the "freedom" argument when the person who is most responsible for championing this ban is the whole Palantir gang led by Keith Rabois's partner.
- BeetleB 3y ago
  As other commenters have said, the GP's argument is not about free speech but about trade. Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still free to say whatever they want on so many (unrestricted) platforms. If someone makes a video of a TikTok video and shares it on Youtube/Whatsapp, that's legal. The actual content is legal, so it's not a free speech/censorship issue. This is the equivalent of "We've put sanctions on China. You can write whatever you want, as long as you don't do it using Chinese pens and Chinese paper" It's not at all unusual for countries (including the US) to restrict commerce with a country if they believe the other country isn't engaging in fair commerce.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - codedokode 3y ago
    Except this is not about commerce. US wants to ban TikTok for the same reason Russia has blocked BBC. Russia believes that information from BBC can harmfully influence people's mind.
    - BeetleB 3y ago
      I think it's more about Chinese harvesting data.
    - sparks1970 3y ago
      Funny, Telegraph readers also seem to believe that the BBC can harmfully influence people's minds.
    - dartharva 3y ago
      I hope you are aware that Tiktok doesn't generate content by itself? A comparison with BBC is stupid.
  - Miner49er 3y ago
    > Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still free to say whatever they want on so many (unrestricted) platforms. Yes, it does impinge free speech. It's not about being able to say things, it's about freedom to hear speech. The first amendment and freedom of speech also covers that, and there is speech on Tik Tok that is not available elsewhere.
- bingusbungo 3y ago
  >we are (used to be?) a country that believes in democracy and the will of our citizens We either need to mass-educate everyone on the whole Edward Bernays subconscious manipulation thing (which we won't do because it would catastrophically break PR, advertising, political campaigns and more) or do it ourselves, do it thoroughly, and prevent others from accessing our citizens eyes/ears, which is what we're trying to do except for that last part. We're far, far beyond "we'll just let our well-educated citizens decide for themselves", and it's weird to see someone act like that's how anything works. That idea's been broken for closing in on a century.
  - southernplaces7 3y ago
    >We're far, far beyond "we'll just let our well-educated citizens decide for themselves", and it's weird to see someone act like that's how anything works. That idea's been broken for closing in on a century. So instead we should let our better-educated governing betters and cultural/business elites decide opinion not just for themselves but for the rest of us? Because of course none of them are subject to any sort of self interest, terrible bias, corruption, mendacity or simply being ignorant due to their own cognitive failures? The very core notion of democracy and free speech is that no one group can be fully trusted to hold the reins of control or opinion by their own decision and imposition on the rest. Thus you introduce the largest plurality possible of rights for expression and governance to mitigate against the disasters that much more often occur with oligarchy. Far from perfect but your idea of giving any key group control of discourse for the sake of "fighting misinformation" (as if they themselves don't create shit barges of it of their own) is laughable. Recall please (for example) that the NY Times, which spent the Trump years and beyond practically raving about the dangers of misinformation and foreign influence of opinions also happily played along with the vastly costly lies of the Iraq WMD scandal that was used to justify an invasion costing trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. And it did all this lying at the behest of completely domestic U.S. policy makers and leaders. That's the sort of cozy opinion/policy leadership practices to which we should be pushing further? Fuck no.
wannacboatmovie 3y ago
> We can make similar arguments Hey remember when Apple, Google & Amazon all colluded to ban Parler off the face of the planet within days, a purely political move, based on some shaky allegations of moderation? Meanwhile TikTok is labelled as a "must have" app in the AppStore....
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  >Hey remember when Apple, Google & Amazon all colluded to ban Parler off the face of the planet within days, a purely political move, I actually don't remember that. I do remember lots of terroristic and genocidal posts on Parler though.
  - suoduandao3 3y ago
    It's easy to botspam a competitor with terroristic and genocidal posts if you only need a fig leaf to remove the platform - not a great precedent to align with. Also, didn't a spokesperson for Harvard recently say some calls for genocide were acceptable on their platform (campus) depending on context? Why aren't the anti-1st amendment types trying to ban Harvard? Edit: Not a rhetorical question for the downvoters.
    - whoknowsidont 3y ago
      Your comment seems to have spiraled out into... I don't even know where? Were you combining threads in your head? >It's easy to botspam a competitor with terroristic and genocidal posts I don't think it's necessary to employ conspiracy theory accessories when the stated moderation policy of the platform was "no moderation."
      - suoduandao3 3y ago
        Not combining threads, but it was a rather obscure reference. The president of Harvard recently testified before congress that calls for genocide may not violate Harvard's code of conduct 'depending on context'. Which makes a widespread effort to censor Parler for hosting calls for genocide rather hypocritical IMHO. Hope that's clearer.
maxglute 3y ago
That's a bad argument because western platforms are free to compete fairly in PRC market, provided they follow PRC laws like EVERY OTHER PRC PLATFORM. Facebook/Twitter only got banned after 2009 minority riots for abetting terrorism and not cracking down on posts calling for mutual retaliatory violence. It's more accurate to say most major western platforms at the time was simply incapable of of moderating PRC content. This was pre western human moderation push, unlike domestic PRC players who already had 10,000s of human moderators because that's what was needed. Western platforms didn't want to spend the money at the time and it wasn't after they scaled their own moderation efforts that FB/Google spung up (now defunct) projects to re-enter PRC market. The fundmental fact is western platforms didn't want to put in the work to comply with PRC laws at the time because it was expensive and looked bad optically (and still does, because are they going to handover dissident info to CCP?), and it would be unfair to allow them to operate in PRC without the same onerous moderation infra as domestic PRC platforms. There's a reason Bing still operates in PRC, see recent Bloomberg piece on Microsoft keeps Bing running in PRC by basically complying to mass censorship like domestic players. Like it's not PRC's problem if internal Google decent killed project dragonfly and whatever Zuckerberg tried to do in the mid 10s.
- tw1984 3y ago
  > That's a bad argument because western platforms are free to compete fairly in PRC market, provided they follow PRC laws like EVERY OTHER PRC PLATFORM. Dude, Chinese national living in China here. I have 3 different vpns from 3 different vendors, that is how I manage to get here and talk to you. Care to shed some light on why they restrict my free & open access to the Internet that I dedicated my entire life to build? > after 2009 minority riots I strongly support CCP's policies in Xinjiang, it is anti-terrorism for sure. That being said, I wouldn't call those angry & brainwashed Tibetans "terrorists". > It's more accurate to say most major western platforms at the time was simply incapable of of moderating PRC content. I used to visit a local forum hosted here in China quite often. They carefully moderate the content, all users have to register with their legal names, the forum even had the curfew every night as their moderators need to sleep and they couldn't afford the risk of such human moderator free hours. Guess what, they still got shutdown last year for "regulation reasons". > There's a reason Bing still operates in PRC, see recent Bloomberg piece on Microsoft keeps Bing running in PRC by basically complying to mass censorship like domestic players. Because Bill Gates has very good personal relationship with the very top leadership. That is the really scary part.
harkinian 3y ago
This is the only part that makes me sorta in favor of the ban.
tw1984 3y ago
> I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. Your argument is lame at best. Using your logics above, Chinese should ban all US EVs, mobile phones and network equipment on reciprocity. Tesla has a huge factory here in Shanghai, local government even offered it free land, it is fully own by Tesla, Tesla cars are everywhere. When is the last time you see Chinese EVs on US roads? I can freely go to any CCP official and tell him/her that my US designed iPhone is good, he/she might tell me that he/she is a iPhone user as well (and then ask me to piss off). What is the likelyhood that any US officials are using Huawei phones now?
- HKH2 3y ago
  No US equivalent of TikTok is allowed in China.
bilekas 3y ago
> If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? I understand what you're saying and I actually support the ban as tiktok can be used as a giant botnet at-will by Chinas government, but an eye for an eye doesn't end well and the US is supposed to be "free" so this part of the argument I wouldn't agree with.
- voldacar 3y ago
  >an eye for an eye doesn't end well Actually in most games that are played repeatedly, the optimal strategy is to cooperate with cooperators and defect against defectors.
  - c4wrd 3y ago
    This simplification misses key nuances. Strategies like Tit-for-Tat (TFT) are context-sensitive and not universally "optimal." Effectiveness varies with game structure, communication clarity, and the presence of noise. Moreover, the "optimal" strategy adjusts in finite games (which you didn't clarify which type of game) due to the endgame effect. Simple hole in your simplification: one simple misunderstanding could lead to an endless cycle of defection where everyone will defect on each other: game over.
    - harkinian 3y ago
      Right, so usually the modification of TFT is that you forgive one or two missteps. We're well past that point with China trade.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - voldacar 3y ago
      >Strategies like Tit-for-Tat (TFT) are context-sensitive and not universally "optimal." Of course. Hence why I didn't claim it to be universally optimal. All I'm saying is that your willingness to defect against defectors should always be non-zero, just to keep the players in line who start out with a higher predisposition towards defecting. The noisiness of the real world should probably bias us more in the direction of cooperation, to avoid a cascade of defection as you mention, but a player who only cooperates will get taken advantage of regardless of the precise details of the game. Some amount of this dynamic can be seen currently in the relationship between western companies and the Chinese state, a relationship that is currently very different from the relationship between Chinese companies and the rest of the world. It is also generally true that the longer the game, the more defectors suffer.
ramesh31 3y ago
>If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? Because we are the United States, and we are better than that. We are a society that promotes free trade, freedom of expression, and economic globalization to the ends of the earth. It's kind of our whole thing.
- vkou 3y ago
  > We promote free trade, freedom of expression, and economic globalization... ...as long as it benefits our mega-corps. As soon as they can't compete in these spaces, we immediately turn to protectionism, ag-gag laws, etc. The one sacred cow we have is profit, everything else is weighed on the axis of advancing it.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  How many democratic governments have been overthrown with US assistance because it benefited oil or fruit companies?
  - jf22 3y ago
    Good point but it doesn't mean that US doesn't support those things the majority of the time. The primary motivation of a firefighter doesn't change because they rescue a cat every once in a while.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
      Not the point, but firefighters actually respond to few fires (presumably better electrical codes or smokers falling asleep with a cigarette). Most of their work is now supplemental EMT, locked houses, cats in trees, etc. This 2018 report (https://www.statista.com/statistics/376683/number-of-fire-department-responses-in-the-us-by-type-of-call/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/376683/number-of-fire-de...) shows some 23 million medical emergencies to 1.5 million fire call responses.
      - 3y ago
dartharva 3y ago
Plenty of American companies operate in Chinese consumer markets, Apple for example. One fifth of Apple's annual revenue comes from China, yet the country never retaliated with banning it while the US turned the whole world against Huawei.
- samspenc 3y ago
  Errr, are you sure China hasn't done anything against Apple / iPhone? https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-ban-apples-iphone-accelerates-bloomberg-news-2023-12-15/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-ban-apples-iphone-... https://www.investopedia.com/china-nationalism-response-to-iphone-7970177 https://www.investopedia.com/china-nationalism-response-to-i... https://fortune.com/2024/03/05/apples-iphone-sales-plummet-china-huawei-skyrocket-chinese-abandon-american-tech/ https://fortune.com/2024/03/05/apples-iphone-sales-plummet-c...
  - hmm37 3y ago
    That's not even remotely the same. That's more equivalent of banning the installation of tiktok on government phones, which should be considered normal for security reasons. Apple is still able to freely operate in China otherwise. And your other articles don't have anything to do with Apple being banned, but rather that Huawei's new phone is now able to compete with Apple sales, despite US trying to destroy Huawei.
- erohead 3y ago
  "Censorship, Surveillance and Profits: A Hard Bargain for Apple in China" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce...
- insane_dreamer 3y ago
  Apple is not a social media company.
jrockway 3y ago
I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Our Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of printing press. So it should be allowed under the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects pledging your allegiance to the Flag, just as it protects China saying "China is great, you should love us instead". The First Amendment makes no attempt to moderate content; you can say pretty much whatever you want. If China's use of TikTok for propaganda upsets you, then it's on you to make a compelling argument that is better than theirs. (I actually don't think that TikTok is much of a Chinese propaganda avenue. People are just mad that it's telling kids to eat tide pods and then they get sick. Who knew that underfunding public education for years would have consequences.) At the end of the day, what this law is asking for is a Great Firewall around the US, that prohibits which websites its citizens can visit. I do not want that, even if China's market practices are unfair. The cure is worse than the disease.
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  I don't think the US Constitution gives the Chinese Communist Party Freedom of Speech. They're generally freedoms that apply to US citizens in the US, no?
- Fauntleroy 3y ago
  The Western world is in dire, dire need of education on geopolitics.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    "Geopolitics" and "national security" is more or less a dog whistle for nationalist types larping Civ. But ye, surely there is some need of education of the shenanigans these types are up to.
- theturtletalks 3y ago
  How many times do we see the government trample on our rights behind “safety”? I’m fully with you on this. If TikTok is harmful, spread the word and let people make that decision for themselves. If kids are too small to make that decision, that falls on the parents. Don’t take away my rights because others can’t vet companies and use their brains if they should use the apps these companies put out.
xdennis 3y ago
> I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. The argument that CCP people make is that Facebook et al aren't banned, they just need to follow the law to be allowed. The law, of course, includes unacceptable things like complying with every communist request). A better way to ban TikTok is to require social media companies to be based in countries which follow basic human rights and democracy.
- s3r3nity 3y ago
  > Facebook et al aren't banned, they just need to follow the law to be allowed Yes, and by that logic, TikTok isn't banned, but rather foreign ownership of said app is. Just "follow the law" and sell the rights.
bjourne 3y ago
The word "reciprocity" cannot hide the fact that two wrongs doesn't make a right. We think it is wrong of China to censor Facebook and Twitter because that is what authoritarian regimes that don't give a shit about free speech do. For exactly the same reason it is wrong of the US to ban TikTok. And this bill has nothing to do with balancing international trade. It's stated purpose is to restrict China's ability to influence American youth.
- daveguy 3y ago
  China is not a US citizen.
  - layer8 3y ago
    Some animals are more equal than others?
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    The constitution is explicit when it carves out exemptions for citizens and non citizens. The first amendment is not one of them.
    - kurthr 3y ago
      The constitution, or the bill of rights we appear to be talking about, or all the amendments? This seems wrong on the face of it. The only mentions of citizenship I know of are for voting, juries, and elected positions. By your argument Citizen's United wasn't just an abomination, but barred the congress from limiting foreign political donations, because money is speech? Interesting that's never been brought up. I mean, I'm willing to listen to the ACLU, but the argument that forcing the sale of a corporation limits free speech is fairly weak, when commercial speech is routinely limited... as it should be. Do you think there is a corporate free speech right to sell personal information? What limits to profit on commercial speech can there be? If an unprofitable social media app were forced to close down, wouldn't laws allowing collection of debts be violations of the 1st amendment?
    - eppp 3y ago
throwaway48476 3y ago
It's a huge mistake to not put reciprocity in the title of the bill and to make the language not china specific.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. Reciprocity of policies isn't really conceptually coherent. There was some semi-recent news (really, not that recent) to the effect that Saudi Arabia would allow women to drive. Now imagine our policy toward them before they made that change. We could ignore them because they have their own country. Or we could give up on that and try to impose some kind of penalty on them. But one thing you're unlikely to see an argument for is reciprocity. "So, they don't let their women drive? How barbaric! We'll show them -- we won't let our women drive either!"
AlbertCory 3y ago
The argument is that they are an enemy. No other argument is necessary. Not free speech, not reciprocity, not that they're an oppressive government. If in 1939 Hitler had tried to buy the CBS radio network, FDR would have stopped him, or the Congress. If it had required a Constitutional amendment, that would have passed easily. Yet we were not at war with Germany (yet).
- harkinian 3y ago
  We aren't at war with China either.
  - jiggawatts 3y ago
    Yeah well, that's just a matter of time in the exact same way that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was predicted over a decade ahead, often by US senators. E.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/05/we-knew-putin-would-attack-ukraine-back-in-2011-says-bill-clinton https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/05/we-knew-putin-... https://www.mccaininstitute.org/resources/in-the-news/icymi-arizona-republic-sen-john-mccain-revered-in-ukraine-sounded-alarms-about-russia-for-years/ https://www.mccaininstitute.org/resources/in-the-news/icymi-... Etc...
    - harkinian 3y ago
      I'll bet that for every country in the world, a senator has predicted a war against them. And we still aren't at war with Russia, but you could call them an enemy for sure.
hmm37 3y ago
The issue is that China has banned facebook and google, etc. because they don't censor which is the law in China. If they decided to censor and follow the laws of China they would be allowed to operate there. Google tried to reenter the Chinese market but decided not to after an uproar from its own employees who didn't want to censor. Microsoft is allowed to provide hotmail and bing, etc. services there, because they decided to censor. The problem is exactly what law has tiktok broken in the US? Is it simply that it's seen as a Chinese company, and therefore discrimination against a Chinese company or something else.
- gklitz 3y ago
  > Microsoft is allowed to provide hotmail and bing, etc. services there, because they decided to censor. Sure, but in an act og completely understandable and justafiable reciprocality I guess we should soon see China passing laws to force Microsoft to divest from their American owners or be banned in China. And when that happens I’m sure the same people in this thread arguing that everything is peachy with USAs actions against TikTok will see it as perfectly acceptable and reasonable.
WheatMillington 3y ago
>If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? Because there is value in holding the moral high ground.
bakuninsbart 3y ago
Reciprocity in this case is supposed to mean "We allow your companies in as long as they follow the local laws, and you will allow our companies in as long as they follow the local laws." TikTok is following American law, which is significantly more permissible in terms of speech than China. American social media giants thought it was too damaging to follow Chinese law and voluntarily retreated (Google), played the game until they got burned (Facebook) or silently comply (Bing/Microsoft). In the case of Facebook, they didn't want to share data on Uighur separatists, who organized protests on Facebook, which in turn left hundreds of people dead. Barring any kind of moral judgment, this obviously wouldn't fly in the US either. No, at the core of this issue is the realisation that a social media giant has enormous influence on the minds of the next generation, and having this be in the hands of foreign powers is very dangerous. Of course, the US doesn't want to be super open about this, since 4/5 global players in social media are American, and they'd rather not have other regions get similar thoughts. In the end, the reasoning is sound while the justification is hypocritical.
- chaostheory 3y ago
  Google tried to follow the law, but how can they comply when CCP laws mercurial & vague which is the opposite of EU & US law? As for meta, why would our people and companies want to knowingly participate in the genocide (not cultural genocide but full on genocide) of the Uighurs in Xinjiang?
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  Well, fine. But now the American law TikTok needs to follow (assuming it is passed by the senate and signed by POTUS) is that the US TikTok needs to be sold, or become unavailable in app stores.
mempko 3y ago
Because economists would have to acknowledge that protected and restricted markets are better for developing local industry than open markets. Which of course is true. But then they would have to acknowledge the whole neo-liberal experiment of open global markets is bad for us. It would also pave the way for foreign markets to follow in our footsteps and restrict google, facebook, and others, further segregating our digital spaces.
firecall 3y ago
Because that is an unproductive foreign policy approach. It’s an unproductive approach to any relationship in general.
Handsome2734 3y ago
China does not specificly restrict foreign app, instead they audit every app no matter who developer is.
account42 3y ago
I don't think the US would benefit from reciprocity becoming more a more common requirement in international politics.
mvkel 3y ago
Isn't that just whataboutism applied in the wrong direction? Like two young siblings, "she hit me so I get to hit her back!"
takerjop 3y ago
Because Chinese control American supplies of widgets. You can check out Tesla, Apple, Walmart where they get their goodies from. Or how about Ametican universities. If things are as simple as a tic for tac, the trade inbalance wouldnt be in 200B+ in China favor.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  Maybe it would be more balanced if China allowed US software companies into their country the same way the rest of the world does. (Except Russia, Myanmar, North Korea, and a handful of other similar places.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

aprilthird2021 3y ago

>If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? Because we are (used to be?) a country that believes in democracy and the will of our citizens. If people want to download a Chinese app and watch straight up Chinese news and propaganda (not even close to what TikTok actually is), they should be allowed to do so. That's the entire idea of the First Amendment... Does that put us at a disadvantage to countries who don't have the same rules? Maybe. But that ideal and that principle is valuable and means something and IS the entire bedrock of American influence over the greater world.

ThisIsMyAltAcct 3y ago
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
- bluefishinit 3y ago
  This level of censorship isn't good, it's very bad. It's also concerning the speed at which the government mobilized to do this. It's a rapid crackdown on free speech and individual freedom.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > censorship Nothing is being censored. If ByteDance refuses to sell, TikTok will be removed from App Stores and have to find new web hosting. TikTok.com will still resolve fine.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      > Nothing is being censored. If ByteDance refuses to sell, TikTok will be removed from App Stores What if Google says no?
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > What if Google says no? Same as if Google says no to paying taxes. Law enforcement mediated by the courts.
      - falcolas 3y ago
        The fines end up being in the billions of dollars - $5,000 per user per day. Even Google can't absorb that for long.
    - nomel 3y ago
      Could you help me understand how that isn't censorship, with more steps?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Could you help me understand how that isn't censorship Censorship bans the speech. If we were censoring Bytedance, we’d block TikTok.com. This is more in the vein of “you can’t advertise your brothel at the elementary school.” You can still advertise your brothel. The distribution and amplification is just being regulated.
        codedokode 3y ago
  - EGG_CREAM 3y ago
    Trump tried to do this 4 years ago, how is that a "concerning" level of speed? The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has been reviewing Tik Tok's Project Texas initiative to handle US data separately for 2 years. This was not an out of the blue move. The citation for those claims are in the linked article.
lagichikool 3y ago
I'd wager that most Americans want fairness in relationships with other countries. And also want the government to protect them against hostile foreign governments that wish to do them harm. Americans subject themselves to all kinds of restrictions in terms of what can be imported into the US. There's no contradiction of the freedoms protected by US Constitution in this. There's certainly no information that Americans need deny themselves by insisting that apps like TikTok are not controlled by hostile foreign governments.
digging 3y ago
> If people want to download a Chinese app and watch straight up Chinese news and propaganda ... That's the entire idea of the First Amendment... > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Arguably it's not even one part of the 1st.
- potatototoo99 3y ago
  Freedom of speech includes not being prohibited from listening to other people's speech.
  - mckn1ght 3y ago
    The first amendment in the bill of rights in the US constitution prevents the US government from restricting the speech of US citizens. It doesn’t say anything about foreign nationals with no status in the US. The government also has the authority to deport whomever it likes, impose tariffs and restrict imports. Regardless of moral stance, that is the reality as I see it.
    - BeetleB 3y ago
      > The first amendment in the bill of rights in the US constitution prevents the US government from restricting the speech of US citizens. It also applies to foreigners who are in the US legally.
      - mckn1ght 3y ago
        I mentioned status of foreign nationals in the very next sentence, and it sounds like TikTok’s status is about to become “unwelcome.”
    - StarCyan 3y ago
      The first amendment prevents the US govt from restricting the speech of anyone in the US, not just citizens. For example, the government cannot deport an immigrant simply because they criticized the government (they can deport for a variety of other reasons though).
blackbear_ 3y ago
Any suggestions for dealing with the paradox or tolerance [1]? Or an argument why it does not apply? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
ericmcer 3y ago
I agree with this in principal, but in practice it seems troubling to have every person (even beyond kids) hooked on a stream of info that is controlled by a foreign government who doesn't like us very much. If your plan is that people should be strong enough to uninstall or smart enough to recognize subtle propaganda, that seems very likely to fail.
- shuckles 3y ago
  The premise of strong freedom of speech rights is that the government being smart enough to decide what is illegal propaganda may fail as well, sometimes more catastrophically.
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    [dead]
6DM 3y ago
Regarding GP's argument, I would argue it's less about freedom of speech and more about trade protection. Although software is not a physical good, letting another country restrict us and simultaneously flood our market is not good either.
tcptomato 3y ago
This isn't a First Amendment issue, it's regulating commerce with a foreign nation.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  What is the nature of that commerce? I don't think you can ablate the 1A concerns this easily. (Note that I am sympathetic to the idea that TikTok is a source of foreign influence. But it's not clear to me what precedent allows the US congress to control their ownership without doing the same to every "US" corporation that's incorporated in Ireland.)
- codedokode 3y ago
  So if TikTok was not earning any profit from US (for example, if it was sponsored by the govt), there would be no commerce and it would not be banned? I do not believe that.
  - darcagn 3y ago
    Profit is not the standard for the regulation of commerce in the United States though. When the federal government set limits on crop production with the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause as its justification, Roscoe Filburn was simply growing wheat over the limit to feed his farm animals. That wheat was never sold, and it never crossed the property line to leave his farm, much less crossed state lines. The government still fined him and he lost his case in SCOTUS establishing precedent in Wickard v. Filburn, because it affected the market prices of wheat, despite the miniscule impact. The same could be said of TikTok even if it doesn't earn a penny in profit.
    - codedokode 3y ago
      That's interesting. Never thought that in a "free" country the govt can ban people from growing wheat.
tempsy 3y ago
I find it really interesting how being against a ban is the "freedom" argument when the person who is most responsible for championing this ban is the whole Palantir gang led by Keith Rabois's partner.
BeetleB 3y ago
As other commenters have said, the GP's argument is not about free speech but about trade. Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still free to say whatever they want on so many (unrestricted) platforms. If someone makes a video of a TikTok video and shares it on Youtube/Whatsapp, that's legal. The actual content is legal, so it's not a free speech/censorship issue. This is the equivalent of "We've put sanctions on China. You can write whatever you want, as long as you don't do it using Chinese pens and Chinese paper" It's not at all unusual for countries (including the US) to restrict commerce with a country if they believe the other country isn't engaging in fair commerce.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- codedokode 3y ago
  Except this is not about commerce. US wants to ban TikTok for the same reason Russia has blocked BBC. Russia believes that information from BBC can harmfully influence people's mind.
  - BeetleB 3y ago
    I think it's more about Chinese harvesting data.
  - sparks1970 3y ago
    Funny, Telegraph readers also seem to believe that the BBC can harmfully influence people's minds.
  - dartharva 3y ago
    I hope you are aware that Tiktok doesn't generate content by itself? A comparison with BBC is stupid.
- Miner49er 3y ago
  > Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still free to say whatever they want on so many (unrestricted) platforms. Yes, it does impinge free speech. It's not about being able to say things, it's about freedom to hear speech. The first amendment and freedom of speech also covers that, and there is speech on Tik Tok that is not available elsewhere.
bingusbungo 3y ago
>we are (used to be?) a country that believes in democracy and the will of our citizens We either need to mass-educate everyone on the whole Edward Bernays subconscious manipulation thing (which we won't do because it would catastrophically break PR, advertising, political campaigns and more) or do it ourselves, do it thoroughly, and prevent others from accessing our citizens eyes/ears, which is what we're trying to do except for that last part. We're far, far beyond "we'll just let our well-educated citizens decide for themselves", and it's weird to see someone act like that's how anything works. That idea's been broken for closing in on a century.
- southernplaces7 3y ago
  >We're far, far beyond "we'll just let our well-educated citizens decide for themselves", and it's weird to see someone act like that's how anything works. That idea's been broken for closing in on a century. So instead we should let our better-educated governing betters and cultural/business elites decide opinion not just for themselves but for the rest of us? Because of course none of them are subject to any sort of self interest, terrible bias, corruption, mendacity or simply being ignorant due to their own cognitive failures? The very core notion of democracy and free speech is that no one group can be fully trusted to hold the reins of control or opinion by their own decision and imposition on the rest. Thus you introduce the largest plurality possible of rights for expression and governance to mitigate against the disasters that much more often occur with oligarchy. Far from perfect but your idea of giving any key group control of discourse for the sake of "fighting misinformation" (as if they themselves don't create shit barges of it of their own) is laughable. Recall please (for example) that the NY Times, which spent the Trump years and beyond practically raving about the dangers of misinformation and foreign influence of opinions also happily played along with the vastly costly lies of the Iraq WMD scandal that was used to justify an invasion costing trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. And it did all this lying at the behest of completely domestic U.S. policy makers and leaders. That's the sort of cozy opinion/policy leadership practices to which we should be pushing further? Fuck no.

wannacboatmovie 3y ago

> We can make similar arguments Hey remember when Apple, Google & Amazon all colluded to ban Parler off the face of the planet within days, a purely political move, based on some shaky allegations of moderation? Meanwhile TikTok is labelled as a "must have" app in the AppStore....

whoknowsidont 3y ago
>Hey remember when Apple, Google & Amazon all colluded to ban Parler off the face of the planet within days, a purely political move, I actually don't remember that. I do remember lots of terroristic and genocidal posts on Parler though.
- suoduandao3 3y ago
  It's easy to botspam a competitor with terroristic and genocidal posts if you only need a fig leaf to remove the platform - not a great precedent to align with. Also, didn't a spokesperson for Harvard recently say some calls for genocide were acceptable on their platform (campus) depending on context? Why aren't the anti-1st amendment types trying to ban Harvard? Edit: Not a rhetorical question for the downvoters.
  - whoknowsidont 3y ago
    Your comment seems to have spiraled out into... I don't even know where? Were you combining threads in your head? >It's easy to botspam a competitor with terroristic and genocidal posts I don't think it's necessary to employ conspiracy theory accessories when the stated moderation policy of the platform was "no moderation."
    - suoduandao3 3y ago
      Not combining threads, but it was a rather obscure reference. The president of Harvard recently testified before congress that calls for genocide may not violate Harvard's code of conduct 'depending on context'. Which makes a widespread effort to censor Parler for hosting calls for genocide rather hypocritical IMHO. Hope that's clearer.

maxglute 3y ago

That's a bad argument because western platforms are free to compete fairly in PRC market, provided they follow PRC laws like EVERY OTHER PRC PLATFORM. Facebook/Twitter only got banned after 2009 minority riots for abetting terrorism and not cracking down on posts calling for mutual retaliatory violence. It's more accurate to say most major western platforms at the time was simply incapable of of moderating PRC content. This was pre western human moderation push, unlike domestic PRC players who already had 10,000s of human moderators because that's what was needed. Western platforms didn't want to spend the money at the time and it wasn't after they scaled their own moderation efforts that FB/Google spung up (now defunct) projects to re-enter PRC market. The fundmental fact is western platforms didn't want to put in the work to comply with PRC laws at the time because it was expensive and looked bad optically (and still does, because are they going to handover dissident info to CCP?), and it would be unfair to allow them to operate in PRC without the same onerous moderation infra as domestic PRC platforms. There's a reason Bing still operates in PRC, see recent Bloomberg piece on Microsoft keeps Bing running in PRC by basically complying to mass censorship like domestic players. Like it's not PRC's problem if internal Google decent killed project dragonfly and whatever Zuckerberg tried to do in the mid 10s.

tw1984 3y ago
> That's a bad argument because western platforms are free to compete fairly in PRC market, provided they follow PRC laws like EVERY OTHER PRC PLATFORM. Dude, Chinese national living in China here. I have 3 different vpns from 3 different vendors, that is how I manage to get here and talk to you. Care to shed some light on why they restrict my free & open access to the Internet that I dedicated my entire life to build? > after 2009 minority riots I strongly support CCP's policies in Xinjiang, it is anti-terrorism for sure. That being said, I wouldn't call those angry & brainwashed Tibetans "terrorists". > It's more accurate to say most major western platforms at the time was simply incapable of of moderating PRC content. I used to visit a local forum hosted here in China quite often. They carefully moderate the content, all users have to register with their legal names, the forum even had the curfew every night as their moderators need to sleep and they couldn't afford the risk of such human moderator free hours. Guess what, they still got shutdown last year for "regulation reasons". > There's a reason Bing still operates in PRC, see recent Bloomberg piece on Microsoft keeps Bing running in PRC by basically complying to mass censorship like domestic players. Because Bill Gates has very good personal relationship with the very top leadership. That is the really scary part.

harkinian 3y ago

This is the only part that makes me sorta in favor of the ban.

tw1984 3y ago

> I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. Your argument is lame at best. Using your logics above, Chinese should ban all US EVs, mobile phones and network equipment on reciprocity. Tesla has a huge factory here in Shanghai, local government even offered it free land, it is fully own by Tesla, Tesla cars are everywhere. When is the last time you see Chinese EVs on US roads? I can freely go to any CCP official and tell him/her that my US designed iPhone is good, he/she might tell me that he/she is a iPhone user as well (and then ask me to piss off). What is the likelyhood that any US officials are using Huawei phones now?

HKH2 3y ago
No US equivalent of TikTok is allowed in China.

bilekas 3y ago

> If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? I understand what you're saying and I actually support the ban as tiktok can be used as a giant botnet at-will by Chinas government, but an eye for an eye doesn't end well and the US is supposed to be "free" so this part of the argument I wouldn't agree with.

voldacar 3y ago
>an eye for an eye doesn't end well Actually in most games that are played repeatedly, the optimal strategy is to cooperate with cooperators and defect against defectors.
- c4wrd 3y ago
  This simplification misses key nuances. Strategies like Tit-for-Tat (TFT) are context-sensitive and not universally "optimal." Effectiveness varies with game structure, communication clarity, and the presence of noise. Moreover, the "optimal" strategy adjusts in finite games (which you didn't clarify which type of game) due to the endgame effect. Simple hole in your simplification: one simple misunderstanding could lead to an endless cycle of defection where everyone will defect on each other: game over.
  - harkinian 3y ago
    Right, so usually the modification of TFT is that you forgive one or two missteps. We're well past that point with China trade.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - voldacar 3y ago
    >Strategies like Tit-for-Tat (TFT) are context-sensitive and not universally "optimal." Of course. Hence why I didn't claim it to be universally optimal. All I'm saying is that your willingness to defect against defectors should always be non-zero, just to keep the players in line who start out with a higher predisposition towards defecting. The noisiness of the real world should probably bias us more in the direction of cooperation, to avoid a cascade of defection as you mention, but a player who only cooperates will get taken advantage of regardless of the precise details of the game. Some amount of this dynamic can be seen currently in the relationship between western companies and the Chinese state, a relationship that is currently very different from the relationship between Chinese companies and the rest of the world. It is also generally true that the longer the game, the more defectors suffer.

ramesh31 3y ago

>If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? Because we are the United States, and we are better than that. We are a society that promotes free trade, freedom of expression, and economic globalization to the ends of the earth. It's kind of our whole thing.

vkou 3y ago
> We promote free trade, freedom of expression, and economic globalization... ...as long as it benefits our mega-corps. As soon as they can't compete in these spaces, we immediately turn to protectionism, ag-gag laws, etc. The one sacred cow we have is profit, everything else is weighed on the axis of advancing it.
0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
How many democratic governments have been overthrown with US assistance because it benefited oil or fruit companies?
- jf22 3y ago
  Good point but it doesn't mean that US doesn't support those things the majority of the time. The primary motivation of a firefighter doesn't change because they rescue a cat every once in a while.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    Not the point, but firefighters actually respond to few fires (presumably better electrical codes or smokers falling asleep with a cigarette). Most of their work is now supplemental EMT, locked houses, cats in trees, etc. This 2018 report (https://www.statista.com/statistics/376683/number-of-fire-department-responses-in-the-us-by-type-of-call/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/376683/number-of-fire-de...) shows some 23 million medical emergencies to 1.5 million fire call responses.
    - 3y ago

dartharva 3y ago

Plenty of American companies operate in Chinese consumer markets, Apple for example. One fifth of Apple's annual revenue comes from China, yet the country never retaliated with banning it while the US turned the whole world against Huawei.

samspenc 3y ago
Errr, are you sure China hasn't done anything against Apple / iPhone? https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-ban-apples-iphone-accelerates-bloomberg-news-2023-12-15/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-ban-apples-iphone-... https://www.investopedia.com/china-nationalism-response-to-iphone-7970177 https://www.investopedia.com/china-nationalism-response-to-i... https://fortune.com/2024/03/05/apples-iphone-sales-plummet-china-huawei-skyrocket-chinese-abandon-american-tech/ https://fortune.com/2024/03/05/apples-iphone-sales-plummet-c...
- hmm37 3y ago
  That's not even remotely the same. That's more equivalent of banning the installation of tiktok on government phones, which should be considered normal for security reasons. Apple is still able to freely operate in China otherwise. And your other articles don't have anything to do with Apple being banned, but rather that Huawei's new phone is now able to compete with Apple sales, despite US trying to destroy Huawei.
erohead 3y ago
"Censorship, Surveillance and Profits: A Hard Bargain for Apple in China" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce...
insane_dreamer 3y ago
Apple is not a social media company.

jrockway 3y ago

I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Our Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of printing press. So it should be allowed under the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects pledging your allegiance to the Flag, just as it protects China saying "China is great, you should love us instead". The First Amendment makes no attempt to moderate content; you can say pretty much whatever you want. If China's use of TikTok for propaganda upsets you, then it's on you to make a compelling argument that is better than theirs. (I actually don't think that TikTok is much of a Chinese propaganda avenue. People are just mad that it's telling kids to eat tide pods and then they get sick. Who knew that underfunding public education for years would have consequences.) At the end of the day, what this law is asking for is a Great Firewall around the US, that prohibits which websites its citizens can visit. I do not want that, even if China's market practices are unfair. The cure is worse than the disease.

ribosometronome 3y ago
I don't think the US Constitution gives the Chinese Communist Party Freedom of Speech. They're generally freedoms that apply to US citizens in the US, no?
Fauntleroy 3y ago
The Western world is in dire, dire need of education on geopolitics.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  "Geopolitics" and "national security" is more or less a dog whistle for nationalist types larping Civ. But ye, surely there is some need of education of the shenanigans these types are up to.
theturtletalks 3y ago
How many times do we see the government trample on our rights behind “safety”? I’m fully with you on this. If TikTok is harmful, spread the word and let people make that decision for themselves. If kids are too small to make that decision, that falls on the parents. Don’t take away my rights because others can’t vet companies and use their brains if they should use the apps these companies put out.

xdennis 3y ago

> I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. The argument that CCP people make is that Facebook et al aren't banned, they just need to follow the law to be allowed. The law, of course, includes unacceptable things like complying with every communist request). A better way to ban TikTok is to require social media companies to be based in countries which follow basic human rights and democracy.

s3r3nity 3y ago
> Facebook et al aren't banned, they just need to follow the law to be allowed Yes, and by that logic, TikTok isn't banned, but rather foreign ownership of said app is. Just "follow the law" and sell the rights.

bjourne 3y ago

The word "reciprocity" cannot hide the fact that two wrongs doesn't make a right. We think it is wrong of China to censor Facebook and Twitter because that is what authoritarian regimes that don't give a shit about free speech do. For exactly the same reason it is wrong of the US to ban TikTok. And this bill has nothing to do with balancing international trade. It's stated purpose is to restrict China's ability to influence American youth.

daveguy 3y ago
China is not a US citizen.
- layer8 3y ago
  Some animals are more equal than others?
- p_j_w 3y ago
  The constitution is explicit when it carves out exemptions for citizens and non citizens. The first amendment is not one of them.
  - kurthr 3y ago
    The constitution, or the bill of rights we appear to be talking about, or all the amendments? This seems wrong on the face of it. The only mentions of citizenship I know of are for voting, juries, and elected positions. By your argument Citizen's United wasn't just an abomination, but barred the congress from limiting foreign political donations, because money is speech? Interesting that's never been brought up. I mean, I'm willing to listen to the ACLU, but the argument that forcing the sale of a corporation limits free speech is fairly weak, when commercial speech is routinely limited... as it should be. Do you think there is a corporate free speech right to sell personal information? What limits to profit on commercial speech can there be? If an unprofitable social media app were forced to close down, wouldn't laws allowing collection of debts be violations of the 1st amendment?
  - eppp 3y ago

throwaway48476 3y ago

It's a huge mistake to not put reciprocity in the title of the bill and to make the language not china specific.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. Reciprocity of policies isn't really conceptually coherent. There was some semi-recent news (really, not that recent) to the effect that Saudi Arabia would allow women to drive. Now imagine our policy toward them before they made that change. We could ignore them because they have their own country. Or we could give up on that and try to impose some kind of penalty on them. But one thing you're unlikely to see an argument for is reciprocity. "So, they don't let their women drive? How barbaric! We'll show them -- we won't let our women drive either!"

AlbertCory 3y ago

The argument is that they are an enemy. No other argument is necessary. Not free speech, not reciprocity, not that they're an oppressive government. If in 1939 Hitler had tried to buy the CBS radio network, FDR would have stopped him, or the Congress. If it had required a Constitutional amendment, that would have passed easily. Yet we were not at war with Germany (yet).

harkinian 3y ago
We aren't at war with China either.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  Yeah well, that's just a matter of time in the exact same way that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was predicted over a decade ahead, often by US senators. E.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/05/we-knew-putin-would-attack-ukraine-back-in-2011-says-bill-clinton https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/05/we-knew-putin-... https://www.mccaininstitute.org/resources/in-the-news/icymi-arizona-republic-sen-john-mccain-revered-in-ukraine-sounded-alarms-about-russia-for-years/ https://www.mccaininstitute.org/resources/in-the-news/icymi-... Etc...
  - harkinian 3y ago
    I'll bet that for every country in the world, a senator has predicted a war against them. And we still aren't at war with Russia, but you could call them an enemy for sure.

hmm37 3y ago

The issue is that China has banned facebook and google, etc. because they don't censor which is the law in China. If they decided to censor and follow the laws of China they would be allowed to operate there. Google tried to reenter the Chinese market but decided not to after an uproar from its own employees who didn't want to censor. Microsoft is allowed to provide hotmail and bing, etc. services there, because they decided to censor. The problem is exactly what law has tiktok broken in the US? Is it simply that it's seen as a Chinese company, and therefore discrimination against a Chinese company or something else.

gklitz 3y ago
> Microsoft is allowed to provide hotmail and bing, etc. services there, because they decided to censor. Sure, but in an act og completely understandable and justafiable reciprocality I guess we should soon see China passing laws to force Microsoft to divest from their American owners or be banned in China. And when that happens I’m sure the same people in this thread arguing that everything is peachy with USAs actions against TikTok will see it as perfectly acceptable and reasonable.

WheatMillington 3y ago

bakuninsbart 3y ago

Reciprocity in this case is supposed to mean "We allow your companies in as long as they follow the local laws, and you will allow our companies in as long as they follow the local laws." TikTok is following American law, which is significantly more permissible in terms of speech than China. American social media giants thought it was too damaging to follow Chinese law and voluntarily retreated (Google), played the game until they got burned (Facebook) or silently comply (Bing/Microsoft). In the case of Facebook, they didn't want to share data on Uighur separatists, who organized protests on Facebook, which in turn left hundreds of people dead. Barring any kind of moral judgment, this obviously wouldn't fly in the US either. No, at the core of this issue is the realisation that a social media giant has enormous influence on the minds of the next generation, and having this be in the hands of foreign powers is very dangerous. Of course, the US doesn't want to be super open about this, since 4/5 global players in social media are American, and they'd rather not have other regions get similar thoughts. In the end, the reasoning is sound while the justification is hypocritical.

chaostheory 3y ago
Google tried to follow the law, but how can they comply when CCP laws mercurial & vague which is the opposite of EU & US law? As for meta, why would our people and companies want to knowingly participate in the genocide (not cultural genocide but full on genocide) of the Uighurs in Xinjiang?
IncreasePosts 3y ago
Well, fine. But now the American law TikTok needs to follow (assuming it is passed by the senate and signed by POTUS) is that the US TikTok needs to be sold, or become unavailable in app stores.

mempko 3y ago

Because economists would have to acknowledge that protected and restricted markets are better for developing local industry than open markets. Which of course is true. But then they would have to acknowledge the whole neo-liberal experiment of open global markets is bad for us. It would also pave the way for foreign markets to follow in our footsteps and restrict google, facebook, and others, further segregating our digital spaces.

firecall 3y ago

Because that is an unproductive foreign policy approach. It’s an unproductive approach to any relationship in general.

Handsome2734 3y ago

China does not specificly restrict foreign app, instead they audit every app no matter who developer is.

account42 3y ago

I don't think the US would benefit from reciprocity becoming more a more common requirement in international politics.

mvkel 3y ago

Isn't that just whataboutism applied in the wrong direction? Like two young siblings, "she hit me so I get to hit her back!"

takerjop 3y ago

Because Chinese control American supplies of widgets. You can check out Tesla, Apple, Walmart where they get their goodies from. Or how about Ametican universities. If things are as simple as a tic for tac, the trade inbalance wouldnt be in 200B+ in China favor.

jiggawatts 3y ago
Maybe it would be more balanced if China allowed US software companies into their country the same way the rest of the world does. (Except Russia, Myanmar, North Korea, and a handful of other similar places.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]