Comment by maxglute
4 days ago
>more pervasive
US spectrum export controls have been every bit as pervasive as PRC ones, pretending muh "rule of law" is a distinction without difference at this point. It's functionally the same.
>forced to divest
If US law is forced divestiture, then Bytedance is "force" to leave, because having US nationalize a PRC company is obviously a nonstarter except for the terminally stupid like noahopinion. Unlike Google + western platforms who "chose" (read: not banned) to leave because they "chose" not to comply with PRC laws that applies to all companies, including domestic PRC ones. The difference is US has no equitable law, i.e. some sort of data privacy law, that enables Bytedance to operate in US... while following the same laws that US companies do, as if Bytedance wasn't already bending backwards following additional requirements that US platforms do not have to follow (i.e. functionally Oracle JV).
Like fine, Bytedance needs to follow US laws, except US laws is designed specifically to prevent PRC companies from operating, vs PRC laws is designed to allow everyone to operate, just said operation is onerous - see retarded reciprocal argument that US companies should operate in PRC without abiding by PRC censorship laws that domestic platforms has to abide by. There's a reason FB and Google had internal programs to re-enter PRC market compliant with PRC laws (before being axed by internal dissent), because it's still feasble for US platforms to operate in PRC while being US (or at least JV) owned. So let's not pretend what US is doing is the same thing - PRC is more rule of law, US rule by law in this comparison. But again, functionally that hardly matters.
> US spectrum export controls have been every bit as pervasive as PRC ones, pretending muh "rule of law" is a distinction without difference at this point. It's functionally the same.
As I said, export controls are such a minor part of the problem as to hardly be worth mentioning. The pervasive control I'm speaking of is things like the fact that ByteDance (like all large Chinese companies) would have an internal CCP committee with influence over personnel and strategic decisions.
> having US nationalize a PRC company is obviously a nonstarter except for the terminally stupid like noahopinion
This is wrong on many levels. No one is talking about nationalizing TikTok (which is not a PRC company) and certainly not ByteDance.
>CCP committee with influence over personnel and strategic decisions
Party committees as part of 93 company law basically creates dumb shit like organizing staff picnics for companies with more than 3 CCP members, which is basically any reasonably sized company since 1/8 of country are CCP members. It is much more minor than export controls. The "pervasive control" exists in the sense that there is higher level coordination like META having US intelligence on board, or forming partnerships with said agencies. Fixating on minor shit like internal CCP committee is propaganda trying to pretend somehow US companies are less influenced by geo/politics when they are every bit as much. The big stuff is again, distinction without difference.
> TikTok which is not a PRC company
This is being obtuse like people pretending TikTok being based in Singapore/incorporated in Caymen somehow seperates it from Bytedance's (quartered in Beijing) PRC roots. I'll grant you DE-nationalizing isn't "technically" the same as nationalizing, but geo/politically it's obviously a none starter just like if Beijing told Boeing they would have to divest from US ownership. PRC would never allow US to normalize that kind of behaviour, and vice versa. DE-nationalizing tiktok, i.e. nationalizing by parties other than PRC is another distinction without difference.
Right, the CCP committees are just there to organize picnics. Sure.
Look, I think anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in both places understands that there is a major difference in the way private companies relate to the government in China versus in the U.S. For example, it's far more common for U.S. companies to sue the government over laws or policies they disagree with, whereas in China it's just taken as given that officials have a lot of discretion.
You bring up Meta having US intelligence onboard - I assume you're referring to the Edward Snowden / PRISM revelations. Remember that this was a huge scandal precisely because the idea of American companies working with intelligence agencies to spy (even inadvertently) on Americans is considered so repugnant. Whereas in China it's just taken as given that the government can read your WeChat (or whatever) messages whenever they feel like it, and any encrypted messaging apps that gain a following are quickly removed from app stores.
This is not a distinction without a difference; China is a totalitarian state where you have essentially no right to speech or privacy. The U.S., for all its flaws, is not like that.
> DE-nationalizing... geo/politically it's obviously a none starter just like if Beijing told Boeing they would have to divest...
Can you not see the hypocrisy here, when China functionally bans almost the entire U.S. internet sector?
1 reply →