The way CCP influence works is through a legal requirement for firms to allow or establish internal CCP units inside their company, which are then officially recognized and connected to the CCP. Since this is an alternate method for the company to interact with officials, through their own party member staff, it can become basically your company's representative with the CCP.
The thing is though, the unit members are also still your employees with access to internal information. Since they serve two masters, the company can be tempted to elevate their status internally to improve how they represent the CCP on the other side. And the opposite can happen - employees can be hired with high CCP ranks so that when they join the unit their influence for the company will be stronger.
"One senior executive whose company was represented at the meeting told Reuters some companies were under “political pressure” to revise the terms of their joint ventures with state-owned partners to allow the party final say over business operations and investment decisions."
Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists, considering how tightly China controls and polices which journalists are allowed in and what they write about.
"Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about."
All this overlooks one simple principle. A democratic society should be held to a higher standard than an authoritarian one.
As an example, we let the guilty go because of lack of evidence, where authoritarian regimes don't.
After 9/11, there was a lot of reporting about the NYPD and others profiling Muslims without any reason.
As someone from Europe, it seems to me like the U.S. "exports democracy" all around the world, with often terrible results, without ever stopping to examine whether its own is still holding and if it really can be held as an example for the world to emulate.
You don't punish an entity simply for where their founders were born. Not in a democracy anyway. If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned.
You don't start torturing, just because you want someone to be able to blame and fast. You don't block markets to someone because someone else on the same land mass pissed you off.
It may seem "unfair" because the CCP has blocked many Western platforms, but you don't have values unless you're willing to uphold them in the most difficult of situations.
It's difficult to apply this argument consistently without claiming that any company who decides to operate in China is compromised. A great deal of American companies do operate in China and will be subject with the same legal requirements expected of domestic companies. Journalists may not, but many American business executives perfectly understand how it works.
If you read the suit, in this instance, it appears TikTok claims it is indeed a U.S. company, and thereby protected by the Constitution, safeguarded by due process, and not immediately subject to IEEPA or CFIUS actions.
I personally think they are no where near being a U.S. company, but that is a crux of their argument and we will see if the judge clarifies their position.
> Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists
So often I tell people something and they say “source” and I tell them why a source is not possible or spell out the exact limitations in data collection and then downvoted to oblivion with a pile-on of why this worldview is irrelevant
This is not a feature of these kind of websites, it is absolutely a flaw
I would say most of the world is not google-able, if you are doing anything of consequence that affects others politically or financially or legally.
> Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists, considering how tightly China controls and polices which journalists are allowed in and what they write about.
I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior despite not being a democratic organization.
> "Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about."
I think after the Snowden leaks we’ve been shown to have similar opaque government compelling private company scenarios. There are also the opaque national security letters. After 9/11 we traded a lot of our freedom for security in much the same way “communist” regimes like China operate. At this point we practice most of the same things, which is probably why we know that China does what we do (perhaps even more).
Is this supposed to be surprising? Virtually every large corporation is going to have some synergy with its host country(s). For oversight, compliance, etc. Of course, this relationship is obfuscated in the US, but there is a well-known "revolving door" between Corporate HQs and Washington D.C.
For example, Jigsaw is GOOG's geopolitical "think/do tank". Jigsaw CEO Jared Cohen is a Bush-era State Dept alum and current Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. Jigsaw Director of Policy Scott Carpenter is currently on the board of the infamous National Endowment for Democracy. The NED in turn uses federal resources to back regime-change efforts in foreign countries, primarily through public media campaigns.
These are but two "Wikipedia-tier" examples and should be deeply concerning to those who purport to care about this issue from a libertarian values perspective as opposed to one of vindictive geopolitical poop-flinging.
I wish people would take some time to actually learn about China as it exists today and not how the West imagined it in 2003. The discourse here and in other places (like Reddit) has been of absolute garbage quality. Even in this thread there have been calls for the US to ignore the rule of law and have kangaroo courts that always side with the government, complete misunderstanding of why India banned TikTok (retaliatory blow in a border dispute), and claims that it is ironic that Facebook/Google is banned in China. That last one represents shockingly poor understanding of recent events. For example, western companies choose not to operate in the Chinese market: https://theintercept.com/collections/google-dragonfly-china/
Citizens in a democracy have rights, but they also have a responsibility to try to understand their system of government and the evil forces they contend with.
If the US wants to ban TikTok (maybe it is in fact in our interest to do so, although I personally disagree), there is a due process. Just like Trump has the legal right to end DACA, the courts have upheld that there is a proper way to do that, and it doesn’t involve being capricious: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-uphol...
And this is actually the due process way of banning TikTok and this is within presidential authority - even if you don't like it. If you have an issue with this being the process, it is fully and entirely with congress who deferred this power to the executive.
It's not ironic because it's not true. Facebook can bring a claim for their ban in China. They won't win as the ban is legal under Chinese law, but can bring it.
No, this isn't ironic. It is actually the opposite of irony. The results are completely expected that a company has more recourse against the government in the US than in China. Maybe the word you are looking for is apropos.
I mean I don’t personally experience the emotion of irony in relation to that state-of-affairs.
Like, if one were to tell a tale of some non-mainstream Christian commune which gave free healthcare to neighboring cities and then one day one of the commune members went to a hospital in a neighboring city and they charged that member a massive hospital bill, that would similarly not generate that feeling of irony.
I don’t mean to say that the US is a tremendous beacon of light in all respects, but we do have this principle that everyone can have their day in court and in some respects that is one wavelength of light which we are a beacon of, and it is not terribly surprising that we cast this light out to a world which does not cast it back to us. (As you might see, in other respects I think that ‘beacon’ is quite problematic. None of my Dutch relatives are looking over at the US and saying ‘you know what the Netherlands needs? More lawsuits!’ But it does give a certain access to structures of power which in China one is often impotent to actually access.)
If Facebook sues the Chinese government, how would that happen?
Would it take place in: A) American justice system, or in B) Chinese justice system?
The answer is: B) Facebook would have to sue the Chinese in China, in the Chinese jurisdiction subject to Chinese law. And under Chinese law, it is legal for China to block Facebook, therefore there is nothing for Facebook to do there.
Now... TikTok vs the US is a different case. That would take place in American jurisdiction where TikTok may actually have legal path to make this go away.
TikTok is an excellent app with great content and an algorithm that works like magic based on your revealed (not stated) preferences. I hope the Microsoft deal comes through without the government demanding a cut.
Weird how US laws are made. App was banned in some non-cyber laws countries like India, still Tiktok unable to challenge them. But US here is getting rebuted.
For all of the weaknesses of the United States, one thing we do have going for us is the strength of the rule of law here, especially where it constrains the powers of the government. India's scores on this issue, especially due process, are much lower. (In particular, check the section discussing regulatory enforcement.)
That's because it's not a law, it's a one-sided interference of the executive. If the US Congress made a law properly, TikTok would not be able to challenge it.
This gives people a chance even if it is the government who is going after them, to turn the tide around.
I would say this is not weird by any means, it is by intentions, and is indeed how most things go about in US. I will be more surprise to see Trump's EO go without challenges.
One of the great things about the US legal system (although it's not uniquely American whatsoever) is that it's perfectly possible to prevail against the government in court, and happens on a regular basis. It is especially noteworthy that there is no single person or organization that has authority over both the federal court system and the Department of Commerce.
The entire United States government system is designed to prevent any one part of it from accumulating too much power. This is known as the 'Separation of Powers'. The executive branch is not a dictatorship.
Just because the executive branch of the government says 'tik tok is banned' doesn't mean that it is. You are allowed to challenge the decision in the judicial branch, which is what is happening here.
This is not unusual, and it is also not unusual for the judicial branch to rule against the other branches of government.
That's how any criminal case goes also. A government attorney (prosecutor) is arguing on behalf of the government to a judge that also works for the government, and yet prosecutors lose all the time. The US has independent branches of government for a reason.
Courts basically have to follow a precedent or set a precedent. Setting a precedent is consequential. If this case results in setting a precedent that influences future international commerce, then it becomes a non-trivial deliberation. Being “partial to the US” might not be well defined in this case.
Trump's action in trying to ban TikTok is actually anti-American.
a) It violates the rights of millions of American TikTok users.
b) It violates the rights of thousands of Americans employed by TikTok.
c) It violates the rights of American investors in ByteDance
d) It isn't a security threat---the Chinese don't care what teenagers have on their phones.
Hopefully the courts will side with American rights and the rule of law, here.
I think there is an argument that TikTok needs to be divested from Chinese in the long run. That was already the plan. However, that isn't what's happening now.
Rather, Trump just said he would destroy the company in a short amount of time, creating a firesale (possibly to his friend Larry Ellison). This is property destruction, theft, and gangsterism.
> ByteDance has had a party committee since 2017 and is headed by CCP secretary and company editor-in-chief Zhang Fuping (張輔評), reported Human Rights Watch. Members of the committee hold regular gatherings at which they study speeches by Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) and "pledge to follow the party in technological innovation."
> In addition, ByteDance on April 25, 2019, signed a strategic cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Public Security's Press and Publicity Bureau (公安部新聞宣傳局) in Beijing. The agreement was billed as "aiming to give full play to the professional technology and platform advantages of Toutiao and Tiktok in big data analysis," strengthen the creation and production of "public security new media works," boost "network influence and online discourse power," and enhance "public security propaganda, guidance, influence, and credibility," among other aspects.
1. Chinese companies are extensions of the state in a way not analagous to anything in the developed world. This creates a valid national security interest in giving Chinese companies access to telecoms (Huawai), personal information (TikTok) and many other areas; and
2. There is no huge market opportunity in China for Western companies so these companies should stop pressuring politicians to look the other way on China (and, arguably in some cases, to kowtow to beijing). The Chinese government will ensure no Western company "wins" against homegrown companies, all the while dangling that carrot of 1B customers and handout out enough crumbs to keep interest.
As for this lawsuit, I'm no lawyer so can't speak to its merit but consider this: trade agreements (WTO/GATT) call for reciprocity. In trade terms, I'd say the US is well within its right to deny access to the US market to Chinese companies in the same way US companies are denied access to the Chinese market.
Enforcement of censorship in China is painted as just obeying local laws. Ok, but what's to stop the US arguing that they require companies operating within its borders not to enable spying on citizens, religious persecution and other human rights violations?
1) China is very developed and developing fast. US companies are also extensions of the state, especially when things like National Security Letters come into play. There’s no transparency or oversight (or constitutional rights) when NSLs are involved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Note: there are rules, but rule violations (that we know about) numbered in the thousands a decade ago.
2) Apple is going to lose _a lot_ of current and future customers in China if the WeChat/Tencent ban moved forward, to name just one $2 trillion example.
You’re right about one thing: if we want to go after China, we should be using a principled approach on trade.
[+] [-] monkeypizza|5 years ago|reply
The thing is though, the unit members are also still your employees with access to internal information. Since they serve two masters, the company can be tempted to elevate their status internally to improve how they represent the CCP on the other side. And the opposite can happen - employees can be hired with high CCP ranks so that when they join the unit their influence for the company will be stronger.
"One senior executive whose company was represented at the meeting told Reuters some companies were under “political pressure” to revise the terms of their joint ventures with state-owned partners to allow the party final say over business operations and investment decisions."
Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists, considering how tightly China controls and polices which journalists are allowed in and what they write about.
"Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies-...
[+] [-] AsyncAwait|5 years ago|reply
As an example, we let the guilty go because of lack of evidence, where authoritarian regimes don't.
After 9/11, there was a lot of reporting about the NYPD and others profiling Muslims without any reason.
As someone from Europe, it seems to me like the U.S. "exports democracy" all around the world, with often terrible results, without ever stopping to examine whether its own is still holding and if it really can be held as an example for the world to emulate.
You don't punish an entity simply for where their founders were born. Not in a democracy anyway. If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned.
You don't start torturing, just because you want someone to be able to blame and fast. You don't block markets to someone because someone else on the same land mass pissed you off.
It may seem "unfair" because the CCP has blocked many Western platforms, but you don't have values unless you're willing to uphold them in the most difficult of situations.
[+] [-] tmotwu|5 years ago|reply
If you read the suit, in this instance, it appears TikTok claims it is indeed a U.S. company, and thereby protected by the Constitution, safeguarded by due process, and not immediately subject to IEEPA or CFIUS actions.
I personally think they are no where near being a U.S. company, but that is a crux of their argument and we will see if the judge clarifies their position.
[+] [-] RavlaAlvar|5 years ago|reply
https://na.cx/i/YW5ziy9.jpg
[+] [-] vmception|5 years ago|reply
So often I tell people something and they say “source” and I tell them why a source is not possible or spell out the exact limitations in data collection and then downvoted to oblivion with a pile-on of why this worldview is irrelevant
This is not a feature of these kind of websites, it is absolutely a flaw
I would say most of the world is not google-able, if you are doing anything of consequence that affects others politically or financially or legally.
[+] [-] chrischen|5 years ago|reply
I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior despite not being a democratic organization.
> "Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about."
I think after the Snowden leaks we’ve been shown to have similar opaque government compelling private company scenarios. There are also the opaque national security letters. After 9/11 we traded a lot of our freedom for security in much the same way “communist” regimes like China operate. At this point we practice most of the same things, which is probably why we know that China does what we do (perhaps even more).
[+] [-] pphysch|5 years ago|reply
For example, Jigsaw is GOOG's geopolitical "think/do tank". Jigsaw CEO Jared Cohen is a Bush-era State Dept alum and current Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. Jigsaw Director of Policy Scott Carpenter is currently on the board of the infamous National Endowment for Democracy. The NED in turn uses federal resources to back regime-change efforts in foreign countries, primarily through public media campaigns.
These are but two "Wikipedia-tier" examples and should be deeply concerning to those who purport to care about this issue from a libertarian values perspective as opposed to one of vindictive geopolitical poop-flinging.
[+] [-] axaxs|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whoevercares|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nxc18|5 years ago|reply
Citizens in a democracy have rights, but they also have a responsibility to try to understand their system of government and the evil forces they contend with.
If the US wants to ban TikTok (maybe it is in fact in our interest to do so, although I personally disagree), there is a due process. Just like Trump has the legal right to end DACA, the courts have upheld that there is a proper way to do that, and it doesn’t involve being capricious: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-uphol...
There is lots of good coverage of China available in the West, and for folks who are interested, here’s a recent article to start with: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic...
[+] [-] vorpalhex|5 years ago|reply
Legal Eagle has a good explainer on this: [video warning] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnjhHPU-uRw
[+] [-] cmonnow|5 years ago|reply
In other news, blacks choose not to be slaves to white masters.
[+] [-] pastaking|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moneywoes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pphysch|5 years ago|reply
It is not even a remotely similar situation.
[+] [-] thesausageking|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crdrost|5 years ago|reply
Like, if one were to tell a tale of some non-mainstream Christian commune which gave free healthcare to neighboring cities and then one day one of the commune members went to a hospital in a neighboring city and they charged that member a massive hospital bill, that would similarly not generate that feeling of irony.
I don’t mean to say that the US is a tremendous beacon of light in all respects, but we do have this principle that everyone can have their day in court and in some respects that is one wavelength of light which we are a beacon of, and it is not terribly surprising that we cast this light out to a world which does not cast it back to us. (As you might see, in other respects I think that ‘beacon’ is quite problematic. None of my Dutch relatives are looking over at the US and saying ‘you know what the Netherlands needs? More lawsuits!’ But it does give a certain access to structures of power which in China one is often impotent to actually access.)
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 29athrowaway|5 years ago|reply
Would it take place in: A) American justice system, or in B) Chinese justice system?
The answer is: B) Facebook would have to sue the Chinese in China, in the Chinese jurisdiction subject to Chinese law. And under Chinese law, it is legal for China to block Facebook, therefore there is nothing for Facebook to do there.
Now... TikTok vs the US is a different case. That would take place in American jurisdiction where TikTok may actually have legal path to make this go away.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RubberShoes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SexyNightWatch|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] diebeforei485|5 years ago|reply
TikTok is an excellent app with great content and an algorithm that works like magic based on your revealed (not stated) preferences. I hope the Microsoft deal comes through without the government demanding a cut.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] itsbits|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdfasgasdgasdg|5 years ago|reply
https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/document...
[+] [-] nomel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sudosysgen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tanilama|5 years ago|reply
I would say this is not weird by any means, it is by intentions, and is indeed how most things go about in US. I will be more surprise to see Trump's EO go without challenges.
[+] [-] skybrian|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afterburner|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hn_check|5 years ago|reply
India, used as the example, has a very flawed democracy and a high degree of corruption.
EDIT: LOL, downvoted to oblivion by the HN India contingent. As provided elsewhere, India's democratic and corruption rankings are mediocre.
[+] [-] Hydraulix989|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] repiret|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cortesoft|5 years ago|reply
Just because the executive branch of the government says 'tik tok is banned' doesn't mean that it is. You are allowed to challenge the decision in the judicial branch, which is what is happening here.
This is not unusual, and it is also not unusual for the judicial branch to rule against the other branches of government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
[+] [-] godzillabrennus|5 years ago|reply
If it’s done right we call this checks and balances.
If it’s done wrong we have lots of other names for it.
[+] [-] minhazm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teknopaul|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dqpb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] madrox|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javert|5 years ago|reply
a) It violates the rights of millions of American TikTok users.
b) It violates the rights of thousands of Americans employed by TikTok.
c) It violates the rights of American investors in ByteDance
d) It isn't a security threat---the Chinese don't care what teenagers have on their phones.
Hopefully the courts will side with American rights and the rule of law, here.
I think there is an argument that TikTok needs to be divested from Chinese in the long run. That was already the plan. However, that isn't what's happening now.
Rather, Trump just said he would destroy the company in a short amount of time, creating a firesale (possibly to his friend Larry Ellison). This is property destruction, theft, and gangsterism.
[+] [-] abc-xyz|5 years ago|reply
> In addition, ByteDance on April 25, 2019, signed a strategic cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Public Security's Press and Publicity Bureau (公安部新聞宣傳局) in Beijing. The agreement was billed as "aiming to give full play to the professional technology and platform advantages of Toutiao and Tiktok in big data analysis," strengthen the creation and production of "public security new media works," boost "network influence and online discourse power," and enhance "public security propaganda, guidance, influence, and credibility," among other aspects.
[+] [-] lxe|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cletus|5 years ago|reply
1. Chinese companies are extensions of the state in a way not analagous to anything in the developed world. This creates a valid national security interest in giving Chinese companies access to telecoms (Huawai), personal information (TikTok) and many other areas; and
2. There is no huge market opportunity in China for Western companies so these companies should stop pressuring politicians to look the other way on China (and, arguably in some cases, to kowtow to beijing). The Chinese government will ensure no Western company "wins" against homegrown companies, all the while dangling that carrot of 1B customers and handout out enough crumbs to keep interest.
As for this lawsuit, I'm no lawyer so can't speak to its merit but consider this: trade agreements (WTO/GATT) call for reciprocity. In trade terms, I'd say the US is well within its right to deny access to the US market to Chinese companies in the same way US companies are denied access to the Chinese market.
Enforcement of censorship in China is painted as just obeying local laws. Ok, but what's to stop the US arguing that they require companies operating within its borders not to enable spying on citizens, religious persecution and other human rights violations?
[+] [-] nxc18|5 years ago|reply
1) China is very developed and developing fast. US companies are also extensions of the state, especially when things like National Security Letters come into play. There’s no transparency or oversight (or constitutional rights) when NSLs are involved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Note: there are rules, but rule violations (that we know about) numbered in the thousands a decade ago.
2) Apple is going to lose _a lot_ of current and future customers in China if the WeChat/Tencent ban moved forward, to name just one $2 trillion example.
You’re right about one thing: if we want to go after China, we should be using a principled approach on trade.
[+] [-] lucamx|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] horsemessiah|5 years ago|reply