Trump to Ban TikTok – and Tencent?

[Nuroblav]

Is it not lovely how Trump is a communist while Xi Jinping is capitalist ?

How the turns have tabled...

[Novus America]

Apparently Trump has told Microsoft that he wants a cut of any deal for TikTok

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53633315

Meanwhile the Chinese government have called it outrageous, against free market principles, a smash and grab to threaten banning a platform, only allowing it to operate in the US if it's brought by a US company..

..with zero sense of irony whatsoever.

Hilarious. The PRC cries when people use its exact same economic policies against it.
Hey Xi, if the PRC economic model is the perfect economic model for the world why complain when other countries use it too?

The PRC made its protectionist bed, now it has to lie in it.

The PRC bans our social media companies, and gives huge state backed benefits to its own social media companies.
It is only fair we do to TikTok what it does to Facebook, Google and Twitter.

Screw neoliberalism, if they use state backed action against our companies we must hit theirs Sevenfold in return.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Is it not lovely how Trump is a communist while Xi Jinping is capitalist ?

How the turns have tabled...

The Chinese Communist Party was a misnomer from the start. It has been a slap in the face to Karl Marx's ideas in how it conducted itself, but it's gone even further and further from communism ever since.

At this point, calling China communist would be like calling an anorexic overweight. Sure, they assume the label themselves, but in reality they have the opposite problem.

I don't care who our allies are in the fight against TikTok, we've got to stop Xi Jinping and his would-be fascist minions from getting his hands on western phone users' data.

[Novus America]

Whether that is going to last is uncertain. To expand its sphere of influence, China targets illiberal countries (most prominently in Africa) with delicious investment money too lucrative to be denied. Meanwhile, the US is losing a third of its GDP by the end of 2020, Europe's even larger, and the raging lunacy in the White House has damaged America’s standing, influence, and power in the world by weakening the system of partnerships and alliances the country has created and relied on for decades. Even before collapsing further due to Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic, confidence in him to “do the right thing” in international affairs stood at just 29 percent among 32 countries polled—down from 74 percent in former President Barack Obama’s final year in office.

The US should not just stand by and let China build a resources empire in Africa. The US should learn from what real imperialists did: claim their own sphere of influence, "invest" and really screw the continent back up.

Seriously, of all the accusations levelled against China, "they're exploiting Africa" is the least well founded. Africa has a huge population, mostly literate and vast resources. All they need is investment, so good luck to China.

Ummm... https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

They need investment sure, but not the “investment” that involves getting shot by PRC mercenaries.

Africa needs investment that is open and transparent, ratified by non corrupt governments, that employs Africans in high skilled positions (not PRC workers who are shipped in) that it can reasonably repay. Offering a completely one sided “deal” to a corrupt government, bribing officials to get it approved, then using it to simply strip the country of resources and assets is not the investment Africa needs, as that is EXACTLY what the old colonial empires did.

[Aureumterra]

Whether that is going to last is uncertain. To expand its sphere of influence, China targets illiberal countries (most prominently in Africa) with delicious investment money too lucrative to be denied. Meanwhile, the US is losing a third of its GDP by the end of 2020, Europe's even larger, and the raging lunacy in the White House has damaged America’s standing, influence, and power in the world by weakening the system of partnerships and alliances the country has created and relied on for decades. Even before collapsing further due to Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic, confidence in him to “do the right thing” in international affairs stood at just 29 percent among 32 countries polled—down from 74 percent in former President Barack Obama’s final year in office.

The US should not just stand by and let China build a resources empire in Africa. The US should learn from what real imperialists did: claim their own sphere of influence, "invest" and really screw the continent back up.

Seriously, of all the accusations levelled against China, "they're exploiting Africa" is the least well founded. Africa has a huge population, mostly literate and vast resources. All they need is investment, so good luck to China.

Haven’t seen China apologist in a while

[Andsed]

How the turns have tabled...

The Chinese Communist Party was a misnomer from the start. It has been a slap in the face to Karl Marx's ideas in how it conducted itself, but it's gone even further and further from communism ever since.

At this point, calling China communist would be like calling an anorexic overweight. Sure, they assume the label themselves, but in reality they have the opposite problem.

I don't care who our allies are in the fight against TikTok, we've got to stop Xi Jinping and his would-be fascist minions from getting his hands on western phone users' data.

NGl, I kinda fail to see the big issue here. Obviously one should be aware of the data collection done by the app and it should be kept off government and work devices. But aside from that I don’t exactly know why China getting data on random people is such a big threat. There is really not much they can do with that.

[Novus America]

The Chinese Communist Party was a misnomer from the start. It has been a slap in the face to Karl Marx's ideas in how it conducted itself, but it's gone even further and further from communism ever since.

At this point, calling China communist would be like calling an anorexic overweight. Sure, they assume the label themselves, but in reality they have the opposite problem.

I don't care who our allies are in the fight against TikTok, we've got to stop Xi Jinping and his would-be fascist minions from getting his hands on western phone users' data.

NGl, I kinda fail to see the big issue here. Obviously one should be aware of the data collection done by the app and it should be kept off government and work devices. But aside from that I don’t exactly know why China getting data on random people is such a big threat. There is really not much they can do with that.

They can use it to build a list of people to target for espionage and hostage taking purposes. Also use it to censor things the PRC dislikes. As pointed out the PRC claims American social media is dangerous and should be banned, why should we not do the same to them?

[Novus America]

This is particularly rich:
“China Daily, another state-backed publication, highlighted these comments as being "tantamount to inviting potential US purchasers to participate in an officially sanctioned 'steal' of Chinese technology."”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.c ... liate.html

Maybe you should have thought of that when you actually have state sponsored open theft of American technology. The US can, should and must take revenge. This should just be one small front in an all out economic counterattacks on the PRC, everything they did to us should be returned, with interest.

It is not stealing to demand restitution from a thief.

Now how many more trillions does the PRC still own us in stolen IP, stolen industrial capacity using state sponsored dumping? This is just a drop in the bucket.

Just the beginning. Shoe is on the other foot now PRC, you laughed while kicking us, now is your teen to get your teeth kicked in economically.

[Groc Ching]

Apparently Trump has told Microsoft that he wants a cut of any deal for TikTok

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53633315

how is that legal?

[The Two Jerseys]

This is particularly rich:
“China Daily, another state-backed publication, highlighted these comments as being "tantamount to inviting potential US purchasers to participate in an officially sanctioned 'steal' of Chinese technology."”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.c ... liate.html

Maybe you should have thought of that when you actually have state sponsored open theft of American technology. The US can, should and must take revenge. This should just be one small front in an all out economic counterattacks on the PRC, everything they did to us should be returned, with interest.

It is not stealing to demand restitution from a thief.

Now how many more trillions does the PRC still own us in stolen IP, stolen industrial capacity using state sponsored dumping? This is just a drop in the bucket.

Just the beginning. Shoe is on the other foot now PRC, you laughed while kicking us, now is your teen to get your teeth kicked in economically.

I have zero problem with this.

[Ethel mermania]

Apparently Trump has told Microsoft that he wants a cut of any deal for TikTok

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53633315

how is that legal?

For the US Treasury and not him personally. That said I am not sure if it is legal either.

[Novus America]

how is that legal?

For the US Treasury and not him personally. That said I am not sure if it is legal either.

That part is dubious. Although he can invoke CFIUS and other laws to force ByteDance to sell TikTok (or at least its American operations) to a US buyer (this has been done before, with Grindr)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch ... urity/amp/
So forcing the sale of it is not unprecedented BUT I cannot see the legal basis for the US Treasury to receive proceeds from the sale, (beyond any taxes) and the US Treasury is not in the businesses of social media anyways.

Probably just Trump trash talking though.

[Tekania]

why should we not do the same to them?

Because, we're not the People's Republic of China and "well they are doing it" isn't a valid reason to anyone with a mental age greater than 10.

[Novus America]

why should we not do the same to them?

Because, we're not the People's Republic of China and "well they are doing it" isn't a valid reason to anyone with a mental age greater than 10.

We are not, but we should still take action, even if not the exact same actions in all cases of course.

If someone is shooting at you “they are shooting at me” is actually a very good treason to shoot back.

It is self defense. If someone is fighting you, you cannot hope to win without fighting back.

Someone attacks you, you fight back. And fighting is about winning, you sometimes have to fight dirty. Especially if your opponent fights dirty.

Also we must acknowledge their predatory mercantilism is clearly crushing our neoliberal idiocy and that therefore on that front we are the ones that need to change. Some things the PRC does better than us. We should not seek to emulate them in all things, or most things, (obviously not emulate their human rights abuses and corruption) but we should be humble enough to acknowledge they are winning in certain areas, (such as trade, industrial policy and infrastructure) and that we must sometimes use their own tactics against them.

And ironically what the PRC practices is closer to Hamilton’s American School/American System than neoliberalism is. Neoliberalism is a post modern aberration, while reasonable protectionism built America. There they are more correct.

Ergo we must not be afraid to return fire.
And trade must be built on reciprocity and common national security interests. Trade and economic relations is a pragmatic matter. It is not based on morals as much as it is based on what works and what we get in return.

Therefore it they shut us out of their market, we shut them out of ours. Market access is not about morality, we have no moral imperative to let their companies do business here, and no reason to unless we get something in return. Trade is mercenary. Business is cut throat.
You do not win in those areas being an idealist.

And if someone stole your car, then wrecked it, would you not demand they pay you back the cost of replacing your car? And if they refused, you would probably have the right to seize some of their property as restitution.

[Tekania]

Because, we're not the People's Republic of China and "well they are doing it" isn't a valid reason to anyone with a mental age greater than 10.

We are not, but we should still take action, even if not the exact same actions in all cases of course.

If someone is shooting at you “they are shooting at me” is actually a very good treason to shoot back.

It is self defense. If someone is fighting you, you cannot hope to win without fighting back.

Someone attacks you, you fight back. And fighting is about winning, you sometimes have to fight dirty. Especially if your opponent fights dirty.

Also we must acknowledge their predatory mercantilism is clearly crushing our neoliberal idiocy and that therefore on that front we are the ones that need to change. Some things the PRC does better than us. We should not seek to emulate them in all things, or most things, (obviously not emulate their human rights abuses and corruption) but we should be humble enough to acknowledge they are winning in certain areas, (such as trade, industrial policy and infrastructure) and that we must sometimes use their own tactics against them.

And ironically what the PRC practices is closer to Hamilton’s American School/American System than neoliberalism is. Neoliberalism is a post modern aberration, while reasonable protectionism built America. There they are more correct.

Ergo we must not be afraid to return fire.
And trade must be built on reciprocity and common national security interests. Trade and economic relations is a pragmatic matter. It is not based on morals as much as it is based on what works and what we get in return.

Therefore it they shut us out of their market, we shut them out of ours. Market access is not about morality, we have no moral imperative to let their companies do business here, and no reason to unless we get something in return. Trade is mercenary. Business is cut throat.
You do not win in those areas being an idealist.

And if someone stole your car, then wrecked it, would you not demand they pay you back the cost of replacing your car? And if they refused, you would probably have the right to seize some of their property as restitution.

There are certain things you can't do without effectively losing. If you have a system based on a particular set of principals, and you surrender those principals under the guise of winning against a foe trying to destroy you. Your foe just one. Because what you were was destroyed..... just not by the enemy, but by yourself.

[Novus America]

We are not, but we should still take action, even if not the exact same actions in all cases of course.

If someone is shooting at you “they are shooting at me” is actually a very good treason to shoot back.

It is self defense. If someone is fighting you, you cannot hope to win without fighting back.

Someone attacks you, you fight back. And fighting is about winning, you sometimes have to fight dirty. Especially if your opponent fights dirty.

Also we must acknowledge their predatory mercantilism is clearly crushing our neoliberal idiocy and that therefore on that front we are the ones that need to change. Some things the PRC does better than us. We should not seek to emulate them in all things, or most things, (obviously not emulate their human rights abuses and corruption) but we should be humble enough to acknowledge they are winning in certain areas, (such as trade, industrial policy and infrastructure) and that we must sometimes use their own tactics against them.

And ironically what the PRC practices is closer to Hamilton’s American School/American System than neoliberalism is. Neoliberalism is a post modern aberration, while reasonable protectionism built America. There they are more correct.

Ergo we must not be afraid to return fire.
And trade must be built on reciprocity and common national security interests. Trade and economic relations is a pragmatic matter. It is not based on morals as much as it is based on what works and what we get in return.

Therefore it they shut us out of their market, we shut them out of ours. Market access is not about morality, we have no moral imperative to let their companies do business here, and no reason to unless we get something in return. Trade is mercenary. Business is cut throat.
You do not win in those areas being an idealist.

And if someone stole your car, then wrecked it, would you not demand they pay you back the cost of replacing your car? And if they refused, you would probably have the right to seize some of their property as restitution.

There are certain things you can't do without effectively losing. If you have a system based on a particular set of principals, and you surrender those principals under the guise of winning against a foe trying to destroy you. Your foe just one. Because what you were was destroyed..... just not by the enemy, but by yourself.

There are some things sure, (for example if we started throwing certain minorities in concentration camps with no due process and harvesting their organs for example, nobody is saying we should copy them on that) but this is not one of them.

And if this means destroying the neoliberal globalism that is killing us, that is a good thing. Not all of the ideas and systems we adopted in the last 30 years or so were smart. Many were dumb. Many of the systems we have from the 90’s End of History Post Cold War era have to change. Even Fukuyama admitted he was wrong.

And we can do this legally under US law.

The PRC has no moral right to unrestricted US market access, which should be granted only on a basis of reciprocity, worker and environment protections and national security. If they want to block out our companies, abuse their workers and the environment, and threaten our national security (along with stealing our IP and engaging in state subsidized dumping and asset stripping) then why the Hell should we give them market access? Market access is a privilege, not a right.

In order to win sometimes you have to admit you were wrong, if your tactics are unsuccessful and your enemies tactics are successful you need to change your tactics and learn from theirs as well.

[Awesomeland012345]

If they want to block out our companies, abuse their workers and the environment, and threaten our national security (along with stealing our IP and engaging in state subsidized dumping and asset stripping) then why the Hell should we give them market access?

tbh, because they give us cheap stuff.

[Novus America]

If they want to block out our companies, abuse their workers and the environment, and threaten our national security (along with stealing our IP and engaging in state subsidized dumping and asset stripping) then why the Hell should we give them market access?

tbh, because they give us cheap stuff.

They do not give us anything. And it is not cheap in reality, the sticker price is not the actual price. It just looks cheap in the short term because you do not see the long term price on the price tag.

But even if we (unfortunately) still buy some other stuff from them, why specifically allow their social media companies access? That gives us no benefit as we have our own. Their social media is not “cheaper” (on the sticker price) because social media is not monetized the same way as a physical good is.

It is not like you can either pay $75 dollars for a Tik Tok (sticker price) instead of $100 (sticker price) for and Instagram.
It does not work like a buying a phone or a piece of steel (and remember the sticker price is almost never the real price you pay, say you buy a widget from me for $1. But my making it creates a toxin that gives you cancer and you die a year later. How much did you actually pay? Just $1? Or $1 dollar plus your life?)

[West Leas Oros 2]

Tiktok is pretty cringe, so I'm not angry about it, but it is a bit silly to ban an app for doing something pretty much every other app does, that is stealing your data. But, social media is terrible. But, social media is technically a form of speech, so we should keep it free if we value the 1st amendment.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Apparently Trump has told Microsoft that he wants a cut of any deal for TikTok

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53633315

Meanwhile the Chinese government have called it outrageous, against free market principles, a smash and grab to threaten banning a platform, only allowing it to operate in the US if it's brought by a US company..

..with zero sense of irony whatsoever.

The Chinese government arguing in favor of free market principles is the most expected, but also the most cursed thing i've heard.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Tiktok is pretty cringe, so I'm not angry about it, but it is a bit silly to ban an app for doing something pretty much every other app does, that is stealing your data. But, social media is terrible. But, social media is technically a form of speech, so we should keep it free if we value the 1st amendment.

They fucked up his rally in Tulsa, so now he's gonna fuck them up. Dont attribute to patriotism what you can attribute to cynical selfish revenge.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Tiktok is pretty cringe, so I'm not angry about it, but it is a bit silly to ban an app for doing something pretty much every other app does, that is stealing your data. But, social media is terrible. But, social media is technically a form of speech, so we should keep it free if we value the 1st amendment.

They fucked up his rally in Tulsa, so now he's gonna fuck them up. Dont attribute to patriotism what you can attribute to cynical selfish revenge.

Trump being petty is nothing new. Still, regardless of his reasons, i'm not sure what to think about this move. On the one hand, it's a bit authoritarian. On the other, I hate Tiktok, and social media in general. But my personal beliefs shouldn't outweigh principles of free expression.

[Novus America]

Tiktok is pretty cringe, so I'm not angry about it, but it is a bit silly to ban an app for doing something pretty much every other app does, that is stealing your data. But, social media is terrible. But, social media is technically a form of speech, so we should keep it free if we value the 1st amendment.

It is not a violation of the 1st Amendment to say it has to change its ownership though. Keeping foreign dictatorships from controlling our media protects the 1st.

We cannot have a free press if we let foreign dictatorships control it.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Tiktok is pretty cringe, so I'm not angry about it, but it is a bit silly to ban an app for doing something pretty much every other app does, that is stealing your data. But, social media is terrible. But, social media is technically a form of speech, so we should keep it free if we value the 1st amendment.

It is not a violation of the 1st Amendment to say it has to change its ownership though. Keeping foreign dictatorships from controlling our media protects the 1st.

We cannot have a free press if we let foreign dictatorships control it.

Well if that's what is happening, I'm less against it.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

They fucked up his rally in Tulsa, so now he's gonna fuck them up. Dont attribute to patriotism what you can attribute to cynical selfish revenge.

Trump being petty is nothing new. Still, regardless of his reasons, i'm not sure what to think about this move. On the one hand, it's a bit authoritarian. On the other, I hate Tiktok, and social media in general. But my personal beliefs shouldn't outweigh principles of free expression.

I think tiktok is mad dumb but I think banning it is dumber.