Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cgmcnama t1_jcdgfw5 wrote

It's what Trump tried to do, and for all the things he was wrong about, I actually think he was right back then too.

  1. The app, even if necessary to function properly, harvests a lot of user data that the company has repeatedly failed to control. (just last year their employees accessed data on US journalists)
  2. There is no independent judiciary in China. The CCP controls the courts. You can't expect Bytedance to refuse, let alone challenge, an invasive attempt by the CCP to access user data.
  3. I don't understand why we allow a double standard with countries who don't allow Western companies to independently operate, let alone enter, a foreign country. While we allow companies from those countries that blacklist Western companies without a problem? There should be some basic element of reciprocity here.

I think it boils down to a trust issue where one cannot trust the CCP. Because even if we believed Bytedance to take corrective steps (which they have repeatedly failed), there is nothing to stop the CCP besides trust.

72

Unlucky_Steak5270 t1_jcexzns wrote

Yeah, I don't agree with much of what Trump did, but he was absolutely right to take a harder stance on China.

20

tandemxylophone t1_jcewynu wrote

I support this too. Markets don't need to be 100% fair for external corporations. While there are a lot of arguments for a fully globalized, free movements of good and service, passively putting yourself into a position external countries can take advantage of you isn't being progressive. It's being a doormat.

Sometimes localisation of markets is the answer.

3

Vdawgp t1_jcg9li1 wrote

Yeah I agree, can’t stand the guy but he was in the right about banning it. Just wish that he didn’t go about it in a shoddy way that wouldn’t have held up in court and we could’ve gotten to this point a while ago.

1

[deleted] t1_jcegi91 wrote

[deleted]

−4

gizmozed t1_jcfb2u5 wrote

I believe in tit for tat and that China has a lot of tat coming.

6

cgmcnama t1_jcfb4yk wrote

Entirely not my point. China does have the right to ban foreign companies if they wish. However, there is a double standard for non-Chinese companies unless their countries treat Chinese companies the same.

2

FunWelcome t1_jcemne9 wrote

  1. A lot of American corporations harvest your data and the American government doesn't really care. When nest got caught doing it no one made a bill to ban them. Amazon even has several products that direct spies on you. We also know about those U.S journalists because byte dance told us and the fired those employees. 2.Bytedance is constantly at odds with the Chinese govt and has refused them before. Which probably won't end well for them. We also learn America doesn't really have one either. WikiLeaks was about how the govt forced corporations to spy on us. The twitter files were about how the govt can force a company to censor a post
  2. Capitalism and we aren't the center of the world. We can't force another country to do things America does.

There is strong evidence to suggest this bill only exists because meta paid politicians to push it. It explains why if you look it up. Byte dance has done everything America wants it to do except sell.

−6

cgmcnama t1_jcfcce7 wrote

A bit of a "whataboutism" here. American companies nor America are perfect. But it's a far cry from China. All governments want as much data as possible and conduct espionage. The issue is how much private companies are involved and how much privacy rights are truly protected under the law. (or if the law is a facade) E.G. Apple would not be able to tell the FBI to screw off when the wanted a backdoor under CCP laws. (and in fact has to have any encryption technology approved by the CCP)

  1. Bytedance self-reported because of other prior violations. They didn't really have a choice with the current political climate because if they tried to hide it then it would backfire horrendously. The point is they don't have internal safeguards to stop this and targeting journalists is especially egregious.
  2. Bytedance cannot be truly at odds with the CCP under Chinese law. The CCP is a board member as required by law at Bytedance. Any information the CCP wants under national security means must be given. Any idea you can challenge the CCP or "push back" via a judicial process is ludicrous." Any notion that Bytedance can "push back" is naive at best.
  3. I'm not saying force China to open their borders or treat companies the same. I'm just saying treat them the same way they treat other companies. They are not a developing country anymore (which is why they had the foreign partnership program).
1

hatrickstar t1_jck7uwk wrote

But we're only talking about Tik Tok when Meta has been involved is some very heinous privacy breaches.

This isn't whataboutism, it's asking if we're trying to solve the problem or not. Because forcing divestment in Tik Tok while not enforcing anti trust laws and data regulation on Meta means you aren't trying to solve the problem.

Do you have any idea how much user data Facebook WILLINGLY sells to Chinese companies? Yet that ban that's suspiciously missing from any proposed laws.

Let's just not lie about it, this is a move by the government to "bail out" Meta.

0

gamestopdecade t1_jcdi71i wrote

Trump tried to do it because people in there hurt his feelings.

−32

cgmcnama t1_jcdinvt wrote

Yeah, I'm always mixed on his motivations. Was it xenophobia, was he angry at Tik-Toker's making it look like no one attended his event? (be reserving all the tickets and not going)

But this is one of those things where, regardless of motivation, he had the right instinct or idea of what needed to be done.

16

MalcolmLinair t1_jcds41g wrote

It's entirely possible to do the right thing for horrible reasons.

13