What do you mean? China has banned all US social media. On the simple grounds of reciprocity (which afaik is a generally accepted foreign policy strategy) this ban seems justified.
The argument is basically that for the average US national, mass surveillance and propaganda by US tech is more of an issue.
The argument against TikTok boils down to "it's Chinese", without any kind of detail or thought on how this badness actually works. What, specifically, is bad about TikTok that doesn't apply to any other influence buying or advertising operation within the US?
HN often argues that free speech is such an unalloyed important political good that all sorts of racism and incitement to violence must be allowed. The widespread defence of Kiwifarms, for example. But as soon as someone mentions the magic word "China" all that goes out of the window?
(I should note that if you're a US national or resident with Chinese family or of Chinese origin, the long arm of oppression can be much more of a problem!)
> The argument is basically that for the average US national, mass surveillance and propaganda by US tech is more of an issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this track 100% with the bills stated intent: to prevent foreign adversaries from having this kind of influence?
I don't think the US is making an argument that data collection, surveillance, and propaganda are bad and then selectively only choosing to enforce these ideals on China. I think the US is making the argument that a company which belongs to an adversary and operates an a domain that is out of bounds from US regs/enforcement is a NatSec issue.
Any kind of control over these companies is seen as "censorship", while banning a foreign (to the USA) company in the US is seen as a matter of national strategy... That's why it is so hypocritical
A lot of companies wanting to operate in china must have a pretty large ownership by chinese parties. While chinese owned companies have no such obligations in the US.
pjc50|1 year ago
The argument against TikTok boils down to "it's Chinese", without any kind of detail or thought on how this badness actually works. What, specifically, is bad about TikTok that doesn't apply to any other influence buying or advertising operation within the US?
HN often argues that free speech is such an unalloyed important political good that all sorts of racism and incitement to violence must be allowed. The widespread defence of Kiwifarms, for example. But as soon as someone mentions the magic word "China" all that goes out of the window?
(I should note that if you're a US national or resident with Chinese family or of Chinese origin, the long arm of oppression can be much more of a problem!)
amanaplanacanal|1 year ago
zavertnik|1 year ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this track 100% with the bills stated intent: to prevent foreign adversaries from having this kind of influence?
I don't think the US is making an argument that data collection, surveillance, and propaganda are bad and then selectively only choosing to enforce these ideals on China. I think the US is making the argument that a company which belongs to an adversary and operates an a domain that is out of bounds from US regs/enforcement is a NatSec issue.
satao|1 year ago
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/brazilian-g...
Any kind of control over these companies is seen as "censorship", while banning a foreign (to the USA) company in the US is seen as a matter of national strategy... That's why it is so hypocritical
Akronymus|1 year ago
A lot of companies wanting to operate in china must have a pretty large ownership by chinese parties. While chinese owned companies have no such obligations in the US.
throwaway4good|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]