You complain about the USA regulating TikTok and then you wish it followed the EU model, which is more regulated?
The EU is inching closer to effectively banning US social media companies with their prohibitions on ads anyway. We may see region-specific social media at some point.
In the EU all social media companies have to comply to the same rules. This is normal "regulation". China also regulates all social media companies on whether or not they are willing to censor speech or not. This is also called normal "regulation" as it applies to all social media companies. No single social media is selected out and discriminated against.
On the other hand, US is regulating Tiktok AND pretty much only Tiktok, which is breaking no laws except now this new one where part of its ownership is Chinese. This wouldn't look as farcical if the US forced facebook, twitter, etc. to comply with privacy issues, etc.
> Chinese exclusion act all over again...a ban on race/ethnicity vs practice
This is an incredibly bad-faith comparison. People of Chinese descent aren't being discriminated in any way by this bill. In the same way China blocking Google isn't an act of racism, this is putting restrictions on a foreign state which is acting belligerentlyt towards us.
We required American companies to stop doing business with the Nazis when we went to war with them. (Though not a moment sooner.) That wasn't racism, it was strategic sense.
It's not a bad-faith comparison at all. There's nothing about Tiktok's practice that is necessarily illegal as it follows basically the same business model as all other social media companies. It is only that it has a Chinese shareholder amongst its shareholders, and therefore must be ban unless this Chinese shareholder sells his share.
We aren't at war with China, nor are we close yet. Although it seems like people do want to move closer to a war and seem to hype China as some existential threat to the USA, and therefore try to justify such ideas. This is despite the fact that historically China has pretty much never used its navy to try to attack another nation except for basically (Japan), and that was when the Mongols had seized control of the nation about 800 years ago. China has throughout history basically repudiated the Mongols' methods and violence, and the Mongol ruled dynasty was considered one of the shortest in Chinese history because of this. Moreover one of the reasons why the Mongols did not succeed in conquering Japan was because the Chinese did not give the Mongols seafaring ships, and the keels were too flat to be stable in the ocean, despite the fact that China did have the technology for stable ships. This meant that the Chinese ships that were sent to Japan to attack easily capsized and the Mongol soldiers on them drown.
China blocking Google isn't China blocking Google because it is a US company. China is blocking due to the fact that Google doesn't censor. When Google tried to reenter the Chinese market, it was blocked and criticized from TWO different sources (1) Various US government officials and congressmen; (2) Google's own employees. Google acceded to pressure from the US, not China.
> only that it has a Chinese shareholder amongst its shareholders, and therefore must be ban unless this Chinese shareholder sells his share
The issue is the Chinese state's involvement. (TikTok's CEO perjuring himself about this didn't help [1].)
> We aren't at war with China
They are, under U.S. law, a foreign adversary [2].
If we were at war with China, we'd be talking about sanctioning ByteDance. Not merely removing it from app stores if it can't find a non-Chinese buyer.
> historically China has pretty much never used its navy to try to attack another nation except for basically (Japan)
Historically America has never used its space force to attack anyone. Meanwhile, China literally invaded and annexed Tibet in 1951 [3] and continues to use no uncertain terms about its intentions in respect of Taiwan [4].
(1) We are talking about an existential threat to the US. The idea that China is literally going to take its navy/army and try invading the US.
(2) Taiwan and Tibet are different cases and could not be considered clear and cut cases of invasion and annexation.
(3) Tibet and Taiwan was never internationally recognized as independent and were/are considered a part of Qing, later Republic of China and later by most nations as a part of a "China" whether now the PRC or previously ROC. They tried to secede, similarly like what happens during a civil war. Therefore they did/do not have what people call Westphalian sovereignty. We similarly e.g. also don't talk about the South during the Civil War as being a separate internationally recognized state. And therefore we also do not talk about the Union invading a different nation, the Confederacy, but simply a civil war within a nation. Nor do we say that the Union annex the Confederacy.
Taiwan has the same constitution, national anthem, flag, etc. as the Republic of China under Sun Yatsen. It still regards all of China, which includes all of the mainland territories as part of its territory, and Taiwan is a mere province, which is considered "Free China". It was the previous Chinese government before the PRC took control during a civil war in 1949. That civil war in a sense never ended. And throughout Chinese history there has been many cases where essentially civil wars took e.g. a 100+ years to settle, but there was sometimes periods of relatively peace between parties, even a trading relationship. A famous one is e.g. the Three Kingdoms period.
> We are talking about an existential threat to the US
What? No. We’re talking about Xi invading Taiwan. That causes war between China and the U.S., U.K., Australia, Japan and India.
> Taiwan and Tibet are different cases and could not be considered clear and cut cases of invasion and annexation
Oookay buddy.
> Tibet and Taiwan was never internationally recognized as independent and were/are considered a part of Qing
A lot of Western China wasn’t historically China. Hence why Beijing has to commit crimes against humanity to integrate it [1]. We can play this game endlessly for any piece of territory.
> That civil war in a sense never ended
Just so it’s clear to the thread, the pro-TikTok’er here is an avid advocate of China invading Taiwan, and thus war between America and China. This is why we need to dismember TikTok from ByteDance or remove it from app stores.
Regulated means a framework of doing business, its not a ban. For example, the government can decide that car from now on have to use lead-free gasoline. That's not ban on cars, it means that from now on the cars should run lead-free.
EU isn't banning American social media, its banning certain practices and if the American social media companies want to do business they simply don't do these things and they will be fine. Unless, you know, forcing Meta to sell to Luxotica or something.
The EU is inching closer to effectively banning US social media companies with their prohibitions on ads anyway. We may see region-specific social media at some point.