[HN Gopher] Trump bans Alipay and seven other Chinese apps
___________________________________________________________________
Trump bans Alipay and seven other Chinese apps
Author : tigerlily
Score : 212 points
Date : 2021-01-06 11:47 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| papito wrote:
| After American intel _officially_ claims it was Russia behind the
| SolarWinds hack, Trump lashes out at China. "Lookit here!".
| Coincidence? Hey, I am just asking questions.
| xienze wrote:
| You may not realize this, but China is also a serious threat to
| the US in multiple ways, cyber security included.
| kenniskrag wrote:
| A teen in a pyjama is nowdays a serious cyber security
| threat.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| And the serious cyber threats are just distractions and
| boogeymen from what's going on in plain sight.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| After decades of exporting (and/or stealing) western IP and most
| of our manufacturing base to China, at the expense of the working
| class and to the benefit of capitalists, Trump was first to stop
| the bleeding. He wasn't particularly smart about it, and he
| should have built alliances, yet he went alone as usual.
|
| With all major western internet platforms being already banned in
| China, Jack Ma having disappeared for weeks now after being
| critical of the CCP, there are still comments here why everyone
| can't be nice to each other, and what harm were those Chinese
| apps causing. The opioid crisis has so far killed more Americans
| than WW2, and at least some of it is caused by the evaporation of
| blue-collar jobs. This is a direct consequence of certain
| economic policies. Say what you will about the CCP, but at least
| it cares about its people - because they are doing the polar
| opposite.
| someperson wrote:
| Why can't the App Store and Google Play add country-of-origin
| labeling for applications?
|
| I'm against the US banning apps, but having a clear warning
| message detailing the risks around downloading apps Made in China
| (eg, history of widespread Chinese government-sanctioned economic
| espionage) seems reasonable and appropriate.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| So what would it say for TikTok?
| someperson wrote:
| "This app is developed in Beijing, China by ByteDance"
|
| Then clicking the info button could then say "Data on this
| platform is typically hosted on servers based in the United
| States but may be accessed by ByteDance engineers and
| governmental authorities based in China. Always be careful
| what you share."
|
| I think such country-of-origin disclaimers should apply to
| all apps (including Facebook, GMail, YouTube etc).
|
| We have country-of-origin labeling for all other goods and
| services.
|
| Clear labeling helps put the onus on the user to determine if
| using such an application is a risk they're willing to take.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| But that is not true at least if you ask TikTok.
|
| Do you want Apple or another authority to write this?
| hertzrat wrote:
| > President Trump's order says "by accessing personal electronic
| devices such as smartphones, tablets, and computers, <I removed a
| word> connected software applications can access and capture vast
| swaths of information from users, including sensitive personally
| identifiable information and private information.
| villgax wrote:
| Facebook/Google does the same thing just owned by different govt.
| WHo's to say what happens to a Russian/Indian/Sri-Lankan app that
| poses some arbitrary threat any different.
| swiley wrote:
| The problem isn't Chinese software, it's the smartphone model
| that makes consumers extremely susceptible to vendor lock-in and
| network effects for even trivial things like sharing files.
| mtw wrote:
| I don't understand why Russia is doing obviously hostile acts
| (elections, hacking government agencies, invasion of Ukraine &
| others, covert operations and so on...) against the US, and not
| much is done.
|
| Meanwhile, I can't remember a covert operation done by China or a
| visible invasion of a third-party country (except putting
| concrete on a few inhabited islands) and then everything is done
| to portray them as the bad guys and ban entire industries
|
| I can't help thinking of either racism, or politicians being
| controlled by Russian intelligence (possibly them not being
| unaware of this)
| notacoward wrote:
| > I can't remember a covert operation done by China
|
| Why would you expect to? Have you been watching for them? Are
| you privy to information the rest of us don't have? They are
| _covert_ after all. "I don't remember" says more about your
| perception than about the underlying reality. As others have
| pointed out, there are many _known_ instances of Chinese
| malfeasance, mostly around misappropriation of military
| secrets. There are surely some unknown as well.
|
| > I can't help thinking of either racism, or...
|
| Again, more to do with your perception than the underlying
| reality. That those are the first explanations you grasp for
| says nothing about whether they're the right ones.
| tristanj wrote:
| > _Meanwhile, I can 't remember a covert operation done by
| China_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cyberwarfare
|
| Major incidents include the 2010 Google gmail hack, the F-35
| blueprints hack, multiple military contractor breaches, the
| 2015 OPM hack which the leaked the details of most FBI/CIA
| agents worldwide, and the 2017 Equifax hack which stole
| information on 145 million Americans.
| trasz wrote:
| So basically a minor fraction of NSA's surveillance.
| fouric wrote:
| False. The NSA has never been shown to (or even suspected
| of) commit intellectual property theft, which is what
| several of the above incidents are.
| trasz wrote:
| So the incidents described in eg
| https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-
| intellig... (40 thousand breach attempts related to
| industrial espionage, in a single case in Germany) never
| happened?
| asiando wrote:
| That's just because there's no Chinese Snowden yet. What do
| you know about surveillance in Asia? If you're here
| speaking English I reckon you know nothing.
| trasz wrote:
| Perhaps. But that's just speculation, while for NSA there
| are solid proofs.
| kube-system wrote:
| There are tons of well documented cases of China straight
| up mass MITMing their citizen's traffic. And this is
| legally authorized under their law.
|
| In 2014 they MITM'd iCloud. In 2018 they simply required
| Apple to hand over iCloud to a local state-owned company.
| Apple no longer controls iCloud in China, the Guizhou
| government does.
|
| I don't think the surveillance in China is even remotely
| comparable to anything that has ever happened in the US.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| As for the F-35 blueprints, they can have them!
| kevingadd wrote:
| China is currently the conservative foe of choice and Russia
| the ally of choice. We'll likely see this flip now that
| centrists are taking power since they were all-in on Russia as
| a foe over the past few years. Russian intelligence doesn't
| necessarily have to be a part of the picture, though we've
| certainly had cases of politicians taking foreign money.
|
| It's hard to say how much of it is motivated by racism, though
| it's certainly a part of it. When pols call COVID-19 "the China
| virus" and talk about making them pay for it there's obviously
| a grudge there.
| trianglem wrote:
| Russia is by no means an ally. Not politically, economically
| or diplomatically. What are you talking about?
| ilstormcloud wrote:
| It does seem Russia is seen as a potential partner in
| "containing" China.
| echelon wrote:
| > When pols call COVID-19 "the China virus" and talk about
| making them pay for it there's obviously a grudge there.
|
| Are you sure that's ethnically rooted, or that they're trying
| to describe the CCP and simply chose the wrong title?
|
| A number of people calling it the "China virus" redubbed it
| the "CCP virus".
|
| You can be angry at Chinese leadership while empathizing and
| supporting its people.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Meanwhile, I can't remember a covert operation done by China
|
| There have been a few big ones that became public against
| western targets, e.g.:
|
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/us/p...
|
| https://gizmodo.com/report-chinese-hack-of-federal-employmen...
|
| But many of the rest have been concealed by the victims to
| protect business interests with China, which is why you haven't
| heard about them:
|
| https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s...
| marcinzm wrote:
| China is an economic competitor to the US while Russia is
| essentially not. China controls a lot of the supply chains that
| the US depends on which gives it great but subtle power. It's
| not in the interests of a nation to allow another nation that
| much control over the items it depends on. They may not use
| that power right now but that can change at any moment and
| there may less public uses of that power. Same reason China
| (and Russia) pushes home grown companies over foreign
| companies.
| mtw wrote:
| At the same time, the US controls the financial monetary
| system (petrodollar), dominates the world military-wise, tech
| and so on. If one is able to follow this logic, does that
| mean that Europe and other countries should also take hostile
| measures against the US since they control "supply chains"
| and has "great but subtle" powers over them?
| marcinzm wrote:
| Yes they should and in some ways they are with various laws
| aiming to curb the power of large (US) tech companies. They
| also seem to have stronger laws protecting domestic
| industries than the US although I might be wrong. Europe
| failing to protect itself properly against either the US or
| China (see how much of UK infrastructure is owned by China)
| isn't an argument for other nations not doing so.
| f6v wrote:
| > Russia is doing obviously hostile acts
|
| Ok, here's the deal. Ukraine had Russia as the biggest trade
| partner before 2014. Several companies were owned by Russians:
| banks, communication providers etc. and millions of Ukrainians
| working in Russia. Now, when 2014 comes, the armed thugs get
| their hands on automatic weapons and overthrow the government.
| And the new government is not just "not pro-Russian", but
| actively anti-Russian with all the consequences for Russian
| capital which has been invested in Ukraine. I mean, you had to
| be in Kiev in 2014 to see what was going on. So saying Russia
| was unreasonably hostile towards Ukraine...that's just being
| naive.
| trianglem wrote:
| Russia invaded Ukraine. If you don't like the new
| democratically elected government in a nation you can't
| invade them.
| beervirus wrote:
| I agree with your basic point, but... 2014 wasn't democracy
| in action. It was a revolution.
| snarfy wrote:
| Lindsey Graham was very much publicly against Trump, then news
| came out his email was hacked by Russia, and soon after his
| stance turned 180 degrees. It's all coincidental but there are
| just too many coincidences to disregard it.
| contingencies wrote:
| This is a bad move by the US. In the short term it creates
| political impact, but in the long term it merely cements a
| multilateral world as we all have to implement multiple payment
| systems to reach disparate markets. The key beneficiary of that
| is China. With Alibaba now getting squashed by both the Chinese
| and US governments, I guess Bezos will think twice before
| stepping in to consumer payments.
| suyash wrote:
| It's a good move, try using any of the US payment providers in
| China, forget app based services, can't even take money out of
| ATM there with Visa debit card
| someperson wrote:
| I'm surprised no action was taken against WPS Office until now.
|
| I'm surprised AirDroid wasn't on this list though. It gives the
| government of China full remote access to millions of Android
| devices, including many in sensitive corporate environments.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _AirDroid_
|
| _What_? Thanks for mentioning that. I 've been using it for
| years (albeit in LAN-only mode, I don't like clouds). Need to
| re-evaluate it now (not that I trust China's gov particularly
| less than US gov at this point, but I prefer apps that don't
| give any governments obvious remote access capability). Do you
| know of any good alternatives for hassle-free WiFi file
| transfer?
| someperson wrote:
| I don't know if it's "hassle-free" but adb over Wi-Fi has
| worked well in my experiences. I tend to use adb over USB for
| file transfer. Both use command-line utilities so not
| suitable for all end-users.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I'll try that, though it's not perfect for me. I'm fine
| with CLI, but my use case for AirDroid is usually dropping
| some photos from my phone into someone else's computer,
| while we're on the same network.
|
| Come to think of it, maybe I could just spin up a HTTP
| server on the phone with Termux, and serve the DCIM
| directory. And then wrap it into a homescreen icon via
| Tasker.
| russli1993 wrote:
| With all this talk about China threating US national security. US
| actions is actively causing damages in china. Sanctions on Huawei
| for example is already resulting Huawei unable to build
| smartphones and other products. There are layoffs at huawei, all
| kind of suppliers, even sales people at huawei stores. If you
| count all the people related by Huawei's activities, its
| millions. Normal people, regular folks, who just want to earn a
| living to support their families. Now all of sudden out of jobs
| during an pandemic year because of political action by US
| government. They may have bills and mortgages to pay, kids to
| feed. Real people are suffering because of the actions of US gov.
| Chinese people's security is actually being damaged here. And
| where do these people go to protest for their rights and fight
| for what were theirs?
| tylerjwilk00 wrote:
| A sovereign nation can't and shouldn't sacrifice itself to save
| another. It's duty is primarily to care for it's own citizens.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| ct0 wrote:
| Are these the actions of the US Government or the response to
| China made by the US gov? China doesn't care about their own
| people rights, unfortunately.
| luma wrote:
| It feels like your argument here is that any company that
| employees people should be allowed to do anything, because
| stopping them from doing something would negatively impact
| their employees.
| dgb23 wrote:
| The bigger point is that people with power don't feel the
| consequences. The victims are almost always the workers.
|
| Free trade and competition? As long as it suits the powerful.
|
| Democracy and sovereignty? Only if they play nicely with
| _our_ big players.
|
| Human rights? If your economic interests align with ours.
|
| It doesn't need to be like this.
| capableweb wrote:
| While you and me agree it's shitty of the US government to not
| consider all humans on this planet, this is hardly the first
| nor the last time the US government is actively trying make
| things worse for others. In fact, large parts of the US
| geopolitical strategy is just that, screw with others in order
| to try and save itself.
| taklimakan wrote:
| > And where do these people go to protest for their rights and
| fight for what were theirs?
|
| They go to their own government, which is the entity that is
| supposed to protect them and operate in their interest. If
| that's not possible because their government is too much
| $adjective, that's on them, not on the US. Peoples have the
| right to self-determine.
|
| The US are "responsible" in the sense that they have played a
| role in causing certain eventual outcomes, but are obviously
| not "responsible" in the sense they should do something about
| those outcomes. They pursue their own foreign policy agenda,
| like all other nation-states do. Then the targets of that
| agenda have the opportunity to respond as they see fit, taking
| into account the relevant implications and welfare of their own
| citizens.
|
| Even more so, causing significant disruption to Huawei and
| putting the Chinese govt in a tight spot very likely was the
| goal of the entire thing in the first place. Are the US evil
| because of this? Maybe. However that's just how foreign policy
| strategies work. To think otherwise is just naif, or
| preposterous.
| StreamBright wrote:
| You disagree with globalization? Me too.
| simonh wrote:
| Do you believe individuals across the world should be free to
| travel, start and run businesses and deal with each other
| without unfair restrictions or penalties? If not, why?
| StreamBright wrote:
| If this is what globalisation means, sure. It is more like
| the marketing message of it.
| TravHatesMe wrote:
| Your comment sounds overly sympathetic. I'm not sure if blaming
| US actions for China's social loss is fair. Bills to pay, kids
| to feed -- is that the responsibility of the US government?
| Without a doubt China is not the most innocent country. They
| push their weight around with other countries and significantly
| impact their economy. Did you forget how unethical and
| dangerous their government is? Tiananmen square, Uighur
| Muslims, Hong Kong, Taiwan .. my heart does not bleed for them,
| not for a second.
| someperson wrote:
| Just like China, the United States is an independent sovereign
| country that's allowed to make decisions which it considers in
| the best long-term interests of its people. Sometimes that can
| mean using trade embargoes, sanctions and economic decoupling.
|
| If the US conduct here in contravention of the mutually agreed
| upon World Trade Organization rules, then China should bring a
| case to the WTO.
| adrian_b wrote:
| It is of course completely legal for the US to apply any kind
| of economic sanctions they desire against any Chinese
| company, like Huawei or any others.
|
| Nevertheless, it is stupid, for several reasons.
|
| One is that there are no real reasons to apply sanctions to
| the companies selected until now and not apply the same
| sanctions to absolutely all Chinese companies. As the US
| themselves say, all Chinese companies must obey the Chinese
| government and they must assist their military if ordered to,
| so there is no base for banning commerce with only a selected
| list of companies, instead of banning all.
|
| So the only reason why it can make sense to choose just some
| companies for the moment is that blocking completely all the
| commerce with China would hurt more the US than China.
|
| However, for the Chinese companies it is clear that these
| arbitrary sanctions are not correlated with any behavior that
| they might try to have in order to be liked by the US in
| order to avoid sanctions, but as long as they remain Chinese
| companies they may be sanctioned too at any time. So they
| have a single exit, to never buy again anything from the US
| but substitute everything with alternatives.
|
| Sooner or later they will succeed to do that and then the
| sanctions would not be efficient any more. The sanctions
| would have been successful only if there would have been 2
| possible lines of action for the Chinese companies and it
| would have been certain that one direction implies sanctions
| and the other direction means no sanctions.
|
| In that case maybe the US sanctions would have been useful.
| As it is, they can just annoy the Chinese and force them to
| give up on buying US products, which cannot be of any benefit
| for the US.
|
| The second reason why the sanctions are stupid, is that they
| are hurting the Chinese only because they were sudden and
| unexpected so they have caught the Chinese off-guard, being
| still dependent of various components that include parts of
| US provenience. All this has happened only because the US
| propaganda has repeated during many decades that the global
| free commerce is good and that everybody should not waste
| time and money by producing goods that might be purchased
| from the US either at a lower price or at a higher quality.
|
| Now all this formerly very successful US discourse has been
| exposed as a pack of lies, as it appears to have been just a
| trap conceived to ensnare other countries to become
| economically dependent on the US, in order to be vulnerable
| to economic sanctions.
|
| Such a trap can work only once and the time and manner chosen
| by Trump were not at all the best. Now all countries will try
| to remove their dependencies on US and the next time when the
| US might need to have real leverage, for a better reason than
| now, it will be much less likely to have enough impact.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > so there is no base for banning commerce with only a
| selected list of companies
|
| Sure there is. The justification is that the US should do
| whatever is the most effective way of retaliating against
| these practices, even if it means that we pick and choose
| which companies we retaliate against.
|
| > they can just annoy the Chinese and force them to give up
| on buying US products
|
| The US is huge customers of many goods and services from
| china. Us no longing buying certain things from them, could
| cause them to lose a large amount of business.
|
| > Such a trap can work only once
|
| Nope. The reason being because of the stuff that the US
| buys from China. That is a large amount of value that the
| US can continue to chip away at, if there is a reason to do
| so.
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| Can anyone explain how CamScanner fits into all this? I thought
| it was just a scanning app -- can you send money with it?
| Multicomp wrote:
| i used to have this app. like many it sold for a single price
| initially, then later someone else bought the rights to it and
| it wanted a subscription and became loaded with trackers.
|
| So I think its the trackers part that makes it bannable.
| higerordermap wrote:
| It had a trojan.
|
| It is beyond me why anyone would trust an app owned by Tencent
| and has intrusive ads, whereas the alternatives for most people
| (Adobe / MS) offerings are free.
|
| America somehow seems to have this political correctness
| complex. There is nothing wrong being weary of such things.
| Spivak wrote:
| Being wary in part or in full because an app or is owned,
| operated, or developed in China is where you run into issues.
|
| Being wary because you find Tencent _specifically_
| untrustworthy is fine.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Looks like India banned it as well.
|
| https://www.india.com/viral/it-has-been-banned-delhi-judge-o...
| uppsalax wrote:
| The article says that the "majority of app were payment
| platforms".
|
| I would interpret it with the quote of Trump: "by accessing
| personal electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets, and
| computers, Chinese connected software applications can access
| and capture vast swaths of information from users, including
| sensitive personally identifiable information and private
| information."
|
| I think with the idea of "camera scanning" they will require
| authorization and they will capture sensible informations of US
| citizens. I think that's the idea behind this kind of ban...
| narcissismo wrote:
| Wait - "Chinese software applications can access and capture
| vast swaths of information from users, including sensitive
| personally identifiable information and private information"
| Doing this is now a bad thing? I thought it was the
| fundamental idea behind the tech industry.
| iKevinShah wrote:
| > I thought it was the fundamental idea behind the tech
| industry.
|
| It is. But it seems that lately governments in their own
| silos are thinking I can do it, you cant.
|
| PS: Not saying in any way to allow capture of vast swaths
| of information to anyone :)
| the_other wrote:
| It is (sadly) but also it depends where that data goes.
| From the US government perspective:
|
| - data goes to US corporations == fine
|
| - data goes to CCP == not fine
| AnonymousPlanet wrote:
| Following the very same logic, the EU could and should
| completely ban the sale of Windows 10.
| jdalgetty wrote:
| Pretty disappointed about WPS Office. I find it's quite good
| running on Ubuntu.
| runawaybottle wrote:
| Trump is not educated enough on these matters to take the
| initiative. The intelligence apparatus is pushing for these, and
| will continue to do so with the Biden administration.
|
| I can't envision this Cold War ratcheting down. On the surface,
| Biden will wipe the slate clean on the trade war stuff, but the
| tit for tat stuff like this will accelerate.
|
| I don't know what the end result of it will be, but the movement
| on this front is almost like day trading for defense departments,
| there's enough bullshit here to justify entire agencies and
| budgets (as in, Palantir is going to find some crap here to
| monetize).
|
| Prediction - at least a few provisions in the near term stimulus
| bills, green deals, that will include funding for China
| containment policy.
|
| Biden has been clear he doesn't want China setting preconditions
| for companies (the precondition being we get to copy your IP),
| and the second bullying sovereign nations economically in it's
| sphere of influence. I just don't know what this will actually
| look like, but Biden/Obama had way more of a master plan policy
| than Trump ever did for dealing with China:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_foreign_policy_of...
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| With Europe and a Biden presidency being pro-China, I have
| serious doubts the western world will be able to face the
| Chinese century, and I doubt they will contain China anyhow.
|
| I'm sure that as China gets even richer and starts polluting
| less, politicians will take pride in that, as if they did
| anything.
| matwood wrote:
| > With Europe and a Biden presidency being pro-China,
|
| Huh?
| sdwa wrote:
| There's no chance of Biden going easy on China, that would be
| political suicide. What might change is that Biden will lean
| more on multilateralism to build a coalition of democracies
| against China in contrast to Trump's reality TV "America
| first" approach.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I'm not sure why you've been downvoted. Biden may or may not
| be Pro China, but he's made zero commitments so far to deal
| with any of the current issues the world has with the PRC...
|
| (Hong Kong, Democracy and the rule of law, Covid 19, lies
| around Covid 19, the ongoing treatment of minorities, slavery
| and forced labour, the aggression towards its immediate
| neighbours, treatment of Taiwan and other issues)
|
| To be clear, I'm no Trump fan (he not only did nothing but
| lied and said he would/was taking action). I'm just saying I
| think presidents don't have much power over this (it's mainly
| economic policy) and Biden hasn't given any indication he
| will spend capital on this as far as I know...
|
| Edit: now I don't know why I've been downvoted either! C'est
| la Vie.
| refurb wrote:
| Agreed. Look at Australia. Struggling like a worm on a hook
| against China blocking their imports.
|
| How Australia goes is how the rest of the world goes.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| I can't tell if your comment is joking or not?
| refurb wrote:
| https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-
| economy/article/3114066/c...
|
| I'm very serious. Dig into the news reports. China is
| arbitrarily blocking Australian imports of wine, seafood,
| coal based on "irregularities" that require "inspection"
| that amazingly results in product spoilage.
|
| China is turning the screws on Australia for past
| transgressions. China makes up a huge percentage of
| Australian exports so it's not hard for China to
| economically hurt Australia at little cost to themselves.
|
| Watch how it plays out. It will be eye opening. My
| opinion is this is a test case and an attempt to split
| Australia off from the western group of countries.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| I think a lot of this only serves to hurt china more than
| Australia, not that china would ever admit they are
| hurting. I don't really want to go investigating this,
| but I can't take SCMP seriously since it turned very pro
| china after being aquired by Alibaba.
| refurb wrote:
| Do a search in other media outlets, even Western ones,
| it's a major concern.
|
| And yes, China is hurting a bit. Apparently the reduced
| coal imports are causing issues, but with wine and other
| food items, they have other countries they can buy from.
|
| China is what? 20x the size of Australia? A little hurt
| in China means a lot of hurt in Australia.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Australia needs to reduce its dependency on coal anyway
| with china committing to carbon reduction by 2050 and
| (can't think of the other country) committing to 2030. So
| the coal is a good kick for Australia. The rest I think
| time will tell.
| runawaybottle wrote:
| Plus they own like 20% of Australia's real estate. You
| guys got in bed with the wrong people.
| rchaud wrote:
| Who's 'you guys' and who's 'they'?
|
| Did the Chinese navy show up on Australian shores and
| take the property at gunpoint? Or did a local seller
| conduct business with a Chinese buyer and make money?
| runawaybottle wrote:
| Many ways to fight war I suppose. Won't get into the
| semantics of this if you think I need to put a gun to
| your head to get what I want.
| hoppla wrote:
| So, they must buy it from information brokers like everyone else?
| hmate9 wrote:
| You can bet Beijing will retaliate and ban even more US
| companies.
| bagacrap wrote:
| except the ones buying manufacturing capacity
| verroq wrote:
| China has always been an unequal playing ground for foreign
| companies. If you want Chinese money, then you get your local
| Chinese partner company and start the technology transfer.
|
| It's only fair Chinese companies in America receive some
| reciprocal treatment.
| WanderPanda wrote:
| Are there any left unbanned?
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Tesla is the most interesting one. Elon was so happy about
| it, but I'm sure it will come back to him in time. Still, it
| was worth it even if China steals all of Tesla's IP.
| lima wrote:
| There's plenty of US companies operating in China.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| But only under Chinese law, which means they have to be
| founded and led by a Chinese national, and the Party has to
| be involved. That's before conforming to their censorship
| and social credit policies comes in.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I wonder how ownership of the Apple stores in China
| works.
| bildung wrote:
| This is wrong, the most common type of foreign investment
| uses "Wholly foreign-owned enterprises"
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholly_foreign-
| owned_enterpris...
| refurb wrote:
| Oh no! What will all the US companies already forced out of
| China do!?!
| aleister_777 wrote:
| Trump can do all he wants, but empirical data shows that folks
| just ignore him without consequences so these apps won't be
| banned any longer than Tiktok was shut down or Chinese companies
| were delisted from the NYSE.
|
| That doesn't mean he is wrong and China hasn't infiltrated
| America at every level, but it's a lost battle now that America
| will be rolling out the red carpet for the CCP.
| jariel wrote:
| Banning these apps was rational, much more so than TikTok.
|
| Financial services have always been protected industries, in
| every country, combined with the close association with BoC and
| political oversight it's a huge red flag.
|
| Importantly, it's worth noting that Trump has no idea what
| these apps are or what they do, this is not 'his initiative'
| clearly, it's from the team.
|
| The Dems and Republicans are mostly in sync on China.
|
| These bans are of a different kind that TikTok.
|
| Biden may use the opportunity to try to 'reset' and the
| rhetoric will be softer, but I suggest these bans will remain
| in place.
|
| This isn't really Trump populism, this is 'the apparatus'
| engaging in actual policy.
| gregorygoc wrote:
| > America will be rolling out the red carpet for the CCP.
|
| Why so?
| k_sze wrote:
| The grand-parent comment is problematic for anybody who has
| read enough Chomsky and remembered the lessons.
|
| One needs to define "America" for that comment to be
| meaningful. Or rather, one should recognize that there is not
| _one_ "America". We need to think in terms of _classes_ : the
| 1%, the other 9%, and the rest. Or even more drastically: the
| 0.1% and the rest.
| hmate9 wrote:
| These bans also seem kind of weird after the TikTok ban. They
| were supposed to find a US buyer or leave the US market. They've
| done neither and are still live.
| akeck wrote:
| A judge issued an injunction that stopped the Tiktok ban
| process. At this point, the court case will outlast the Trump
| presidency.
| indymike wrote:
| Perhaps it is because our government does not have unlimited
| power to seize property, and the order against TikTok was not
| legal? Just because the executive branch makes an order, or our
| legislative branch makes a law, or for that matter, a judge
| makes a ruling, does not mean that it will not be overturned
| under judicial review. Our entire system in the US is based on
| individual rights being protected from the collective will.
| koreanguy wrote:
| you have speech zones, and you need permits to protest.
|
| collective will is a delusional thought
| [deleted]
| faitswulff wrote:
| Trump simply forgot about it [0].
|
| [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/11/tiktok-says-
| its-...
| patrickk wrote:
| Something similar happened when Gary Cohn swiped a letter off
| Trump's desk on the US-South Korea trade deal.
|
| > Another portion of the book describes an instance with Mr
| Trump's former chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, who "stole
| a letter off Trump's desk" that the president intended to
| sign to formally withdraw the US from a trade agreement with
| South Korea.
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
| politic...
| heisenbit wrote:
| This is a move that does not make sense at all - seriously you
| start a squabble about a payment service with one of your
| largest bondholder? It does not make sense in a strategic way -
| what on earth is the goal here, if you want to reduce Chinese
| sales tell Walmart buying the stuff. It makes no tactical sense
| - there is not current trigger and the administration is
| outgoing in a few weeks. The only sense I can see is salting
| the ground for the incoming administration's diplomacy and
| there I think they underestimate the ability of the Chinese to
| pursue long term goals.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| "It does not make sense in a strategic way"
|
| "It makes no tactical sense"
|
| This is a pretty good summary of much of the last four years.
| jjeaff wrote:
| I agree it makes no sense. But having China as a bondholder
| does not give them any power over us. Especially when said
| bonds are delineated in US currency - something the US can
| print at will.
| insert_coin wrote:
| Is not the money that is the problem, they hold bonds
| because they specifically do not want US dollars and are
| waiting for the time when the US (or the world) has
| something other than US dollars to offer them.
|
| They don't want dollars doesn't matter who prints them.
| klyrs wrote:
| Thought experiment: US pays China $1T in US fiat.
| Simultaneously, US cuts $1T checks to every single resident
| of the US. Chaos ensues. But seriously, wtf would happen in
| this situation?
| vkou wrote:
| Hyperinflation and the collapse of the US economy, and at
| long last, the introduction of socialism to the United
| States, (unfortunately, in the worst possible manner). A
| week later, we'll all be trading cans of gasoline and
| ammunition for euros and bottle caps.
|
| Perfect example of cutting off your nose to spite your
| face.
| ficklepickle wrote:
| We've all seen Red Dawn. Patrick Swayze will save us from
| the big bad socialists.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Answer: The CARES act was the US government printing $2
| trillion bucks and handing checks out to every resident
| of the US. Nothing happened (the chaos predated the
| money).
|
| Also, it's important to realize that t-bonds and USDs are
| basically the same thing. A T-bond is, for all intents
| and purposes, high-denomination dollar bill that can be
| exchanged for low-denomination bills on an open market.
| klyrs wrote:
| You missed the part where I said _each resident_ would
| get a trillion bucks. Patently absurd, I know, but it 's
| more fun to imagine than today's actual news.
| chrischen wrote:
| Basically what is happening right now, though not as
| extreme.
| nostromo wrote:
| China sitting on over $1 trillion in US debt doesn't give
| them leverage over the US, it gives the US leverage over
| China.
| DarthGhandi wrote:
| This isn't right, there's incentive for both parties to
| behave but anytime China can sell treasuries on the open
| market for below what they are worth driving up yields
| dramatically.
|
| If the US tries to issue more bonds they'll have to match
| market rates or buyers will simply go to the secondary
| markets.
|
| You're suggesting that the US could intentionally devalue
| it's own notes to financially hurt China, but that would
| also devastate every other holder as well as itself.
| Basically economic scorched Earth policy that even a madman
| wouldn't consider.
| [deleted]
| tandr wrote:
| Would you be kind and explain how this is works? (my
| suspicion is that it is akin "if you owe bank a $10000, you
| have a problem. If you owe bank a $100mil, bank has a
| problem", but please don't let this idea influence your
| answer)
|
| Thank you.
| tyre wrote:
| China has taken on the risk of us paying the $1tn. If
| they were to get incredibly aggressive, for example
| starting a war, then we could clear the debt. We just
| don't pay.
|
| $1tn is a lot of money to any country, even one as large
| as China.
|
| Defaulting on our debt would be a huge fucking deal for
| us as well, but if the stakes were high enough others
| would understand that we couldn't pay someone money while
| at war.
| hertzrat wrote:
| Both nations are nuclear armed. Creating a nuclear winter
| over a debt is a sketchy plan
| mywittyname wrote:
| Especially such in small amount.
|
| It sounds like a lot of money, but the US War in Iraq
| tallied over a trillion, with Afghanistan matching that
| amount.
|
| The CARES Act is estimated to have cost $2 trillion.
|
| Countries are not going to go to war over such a petty
| amount of money. The costs of such a war would be 100x
| that amount, easily.
| hertzrat wrote:
| The cost of two first world nuclear armed nations going
| to war can't really be measured in dollars. Even if nukes
| didn't come into play, I'm listening to Dan Carlin's
| Hardcore History episodes on the War in the Pacific right
| now. The death tolls and misery is just staggering, and
| he hasn't even gotten to the firebombing where I'm at
| yet.
| eitland wrote:
| There's a saying at least here in Norway that goes along
| tje lines of:
|
| "If you owe the bank a 5 million NOK and cannot pay then
| you have a problem.
|
| If however you owe the bank 500 million NOK and cannot
| pay then the bank has a problem."
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| This one is just as common in the US, precise numbers and
| currency aside.
| Smithalicious wrote:
| If I loan my girlfriend a hoodie and then break up with
| her, I'm not getting that hoodie back
| newdude116 wrote:
| Ah. Would you mind explaining how? I think that this is a
| myth that this gives you leverage.
| insert_coin wrote:
| Nonsense.
|
| If China dumps those bonds tomorrow the US dollar would
| collapse instantly. China would feel some pain of course,
| but their internal economy is not directly tied to
| international markets so they can handle it way better.
| mywittyname wrote:
| The Federal reserve would buy them all up at the now
| discounted rate.
|
| Now China would be stuck selling assets (t-bonds) at a
| loss, and in return, they get another asset (USD) which
| now has a suppressed value. And since low USD makes
| American goods relatively cheaper, it will hurt the
| Chinese production economy and help the American one.
|
| Also, China could have difficulty deploying those USDs if
| the US Government imposes sanctions or other prohibitions
| on purchasing or capital inflow to the US.
| insert_coin wrote:
| > The Federal reserve would buy them all up at the now
| discounted rate.
|
| Further proving to anyone else holding bonds how
| worthless dollars are.
| mywittyname wrote:
| T-bonds and dollars are basically the same thing. A
| t-bond is basically a bank account with the US Treasury
| saying that you gave them USD and that you're entitled to
| that USD back, with interest, at some later date.
|
| Saying China "dumping" t-bonds is bad for America is like
| saying that a person "dumping" CDs is bad for a bank. The
| seller is the one getting hosed on the deal, because they
| are forced to sell at a discount (otherwise, it wouldn't
| constitute dumping). The bank / treasury already knows
| they need to pay back the money at some point.
|
| Also, a trillion dollars in t-bonds isn't that much. The
| Fed has purchased hundreds of billion on several
| occasions without much fanfare. A trillion bucks won't do
| much more than trigger some NYTimes articles on the
| subject.
| insert_coin wrote:
| Dollars are dollars now, bonds are dollars in the future.
| They are not the same.
|
| Dumping bonds is not just an economic decision, but also
| a trust decision. You hold bonds because you trust the
| US. Dumping bonds means you no longer trust the US
| ability to pay back those bonds with dollars worth
| anything; that you lost hope of ever getting repaid.
|
| And of course you lose your nominal amounts of dollars,
| who's arguing that? You still dump them because you are
| taking your loses today instead taking more tomorrow.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > They are not the same.
|
| They are cash and cash-equivalents. Meaning, the same.
|
| Many large business transactions are done using t-bonds.
| The amount of dollars in the economy is surprisingly
| small, thus, at some price point, it becomes necessarily
| to pay in t-bonds.
| insert_coin wrote:
| > They are cash and cash-equivalents. Meaning, the same.
|
| > Many large business transactions are done using
| t-bonds. The amount of dollars in the economy is
| surprisingly small, thus, at some price point, it becomes
| necessarily to pay in t-bonds.
|
| Then they are not the same. You admit they are not the
| same, then deny they are not the same. If they were the
| same they would be called the same, and would be the
| same.
|
| They can be equivalent and they are used similarly, just
| as a house can be used as "cash-equivalent" under certain
| circumstances. But they are different instruments that
| allow different (and some similar) uses.
| KorematsuFred wrote:
| I recommend you read this short bio of Trump's economic advisor
| Peter Navarro (aka Ron Vara) [1]. I am deeply familiar with
| Trump's policies on immigration which were not just evil (as
| partisans pointed out) their real hallmark was how
| incompetently they were implemented. Same his happening on the
| economic front.
|
| I am not passing a value judgement on China or US trade
| relationships but from a developed nation like USA I would
| expect a broad policy first using which we can reliably predict
| how a successful Chinese company be treated in USA. That helps
| consumers, business partners VCs and so on.
|
| https://reason.com/2020/11/08/peter-navarros-no-good-economi...
| zpeti wrote:
| Because despite so many people claiming Trump will create a
| dictatorship, it turns out US courts do actually have power,
| and the seperation of powers does actually work.
|
| The president isn't the be all and end all power in the USA, as
| some people would like to think.
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| Is that what happened? From what I've read, it seems that the
| government just kinda lost interest in pursuing it.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/11/trump-admin-
| dela...
| papito wrote:
| Trump alone, maybe not. He doesn't want to do the hard work
| that goes into becoming a dictator. Dictators come to power
| very often through legitimate means and deft political work.
| It's not like all dictatorships come to life through violent
| means. It's not the case. It's going back to a democracy that
| HAS to be violent.
|
| Also, if the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress, the
| odds that Joe Biden would be sworn in on the 21st would be
| very slim. There is your dictatorship. You might say that we
| would essentially become a parliamentary system, but I don't
| think that's what we were GOING for.
| 7952 wrote:
| A lot depends on the military and police. They have the
| ability to enforce the law or constitution. Or they can
| just stand aside and let things happen, like a peaceful
| revolution. You can't be a dictator from a prison cell
| after all.
| papito wrote:
| The military is not going to swoop in and cuff Ted Cruz
| after he votes to nullify a US election. There is no
| election police. It's all based on an honor system.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>It's going back to a democracy that HAS to be violent.
|
| Uhm, you might be unaware, but Poland has gotten rid of
| communism and replaced the ruling communist party through
| both peaceful protests and democratic elections. I see
| these comments all the time ("all uprisings have to be
| violent") but that's just provably not true.
| wGeF7H8Z59y985y wrote:
| This only worked for Poland because their communist
| masters (the Soviets) simply disappeared overnight for
| reasons of their own. It's not as if Poland itself had
| some intrinsic desire for communism and then changed its
| mind.
| virgilp wrote:
| If you claim "Always X" (going back to democracy HAS to
| be violent), it's perfectly proper to disprove your claim
| with a singular example of "not X".
| Steltek wrote:
| Are there any absolute statements that one can make about
| humans and human behavior? All humans have arms and legs?
| No. Even "All humans have brains" seems debatable after
| 2020 :-P.
| auggierose wrote:
| Also, Polish democracy is in a sorry state right now.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| > their communist masters (the Soviets) simply
| disappeared overnight
|
| On the contrary. They stayed in power for many years in
| various forms. Read about the deal Solidarity struck with
| the commies in Magdalenka. No one left. They just changed
| their banners.
| toper-centage wrote:
| You should watch Rules Rulers on YouTube by CGP Grey. It
| very neatly summarises how you can't change a regime
| peacefully unless keys parties (e.g. Police, Military)
| are on your side. If the regime is paying those keys
| well, the population has little power.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| All true about (mostly) peaceful transition of power in
| Poland. Worth noting there were casualties though -
| father Jerzy Popieluszko, the "Wujek" coal mine come to
| mind as examples.
|
| However the reason why it happened relatively seamlessly
| in Poland has to do with the fact that after the
| transition the post-communists still held onto a lot of
| power and the most impactful branches of the government,
| like the secret services. This was part of a deal in
| Magdalenka. Poland never opened their communist archives
| because that would compromise many active politicians.
| They didn't get rid of the cancer like they did in
| Chechoslovakia or the DDR.
|
| A good evidence of that was the fact that my Polish
| grandfather who was lt colonel of secret service (going
| after the Solidarity freedom fighters) still enjoyed his
| 10x higher pension and privileges than his victims even
| 10+ years after Poland became a "free" country.
| mamon wrote:
| Truth is, only 4 years after supposed fall of communism
| in Poland communists went back to power by winning
| democratic parlimentary elections in 1993. Two years
| later they also won presidential election.
| gambiting wrote:
| Sure, but the point is that those were by all measures
| and accounts(at least I can't find any proof suggesting
| otherwise) free and democratic elections. A party
| consisting mostly of former communist politicians won,
| sure - but pre 1989 there was no democracy, there were
| elections but just like there are elections in the
| present-day Democratic Republic of Korea - the ruling
| party always wins with 99% of the votes. After 1989 we
| have managed to change the system into democracy where
| both the parliment and the president are chosen by the
| people - and well, the best proof of it working is that
| the SLD party both won and then lost the elections, all
| before the decade was out.
| mamon wrote:
| Yes, formally the win was fair, on the surface, but it
| wouldn't happen without some preparations. The deal made
| with communists in 1989 made sure that:
|
| 1. Communist party members never answered for their
| crimes, and were free to continue their political
| careers.
|
| 2. Compromised communist judges continued their service
| in courts, effectively granting communist scumbags
| immunity for their crimes. Crimes which included stealing
| huge amounts of money, which then were used for point 3:
|
| 3. The only two private TV networks, as well as biggest
| newspaper were owned/controlled by former communist
| intelligence officers. This was a great propaganda
| platform.
|
| You see, that's a downside of peaceful revolutions: you
| never get a chance of permanently getting rid of your
| former rulers. Had generals Jaruzelski, Kiszczak and
| maybe two dozens other top ranking communist been
| executed in 1989 we might have avoided this mess.
| adrian_b wrote:
| I do not know why some down-voted this, but all these
| points are correct, and not only for Poland but also for
| many other countries from Eastern Europe, which had or
| even still have political problems due to the descendants
| of the former communists, who never really lost their
| mafia-like power.
| chii wrote:
| which is good - democracy and such does have some balancing
| effect. But it's also democracy that elected someone like
| trump.... _shrugs_
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Yeah, Trump failed to do what he tried to do. Take that,
| libs!
| krapp wrote:
| Half the country (ok, that's hyperbole) believes Trump won a
| second term by an overwhelming margin and that the Democratic
| Party has installed Joe Biden via coup de tat, possibly on
| behalf of the CCP. Republicans have openly called for martial
| law, and using numerous underhanded (but technically legal)
| tactics to overturn the election, and state governors have
| suggested secession and civil war.
|
| The narrative he and the right wing have been building over
| most of the last decade - that America at all levels of
| society is being infiltrated and captured by leftist
| extremists as a pretext to some kind of
| communist/globalist/NWO takeover (so vote for God, Guns and
| the GOP) - is exactly the doomsday trigger scenario that
| American militias have fantasized about and wargamed over,
| and QAnon and many Evangelicals believe Trump has been sent
| by God to cleanse America of occult pedophiles and atheistic
| liberalism.
|
| Sinclair Lewis may or may not have said "When Fascism comes
| to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a
| cross," in other words, by infiltrating American gun culture
| and conservative Christianity, because those are the forces
| that control the greatest potential for populist violence in
| the US. Trump may not have succeeded directly, but it remains
| to be seen who he's laid the foundations for in the future.
| ficklepickle wrote:
| Coup d'etat
| derivagral wrote:
| I would suggest looking at Altemeyer's work; the
| authoritative streak runs on both sides.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Altemeyer
| krapp wrote:
| But only one side is actually trying to negate the
| legitimate result of a Presidential election at the
| moment, and it isn't the Democrats or "the Left."
| vorpalhex wrote:
| The beginning of 2016 was quite different though. Just
| because Democrats are currently the heroes doesn't buy
| them pardon for past sins - or protect them from future
| ones.
| krapp wrote:
| The "sins" of the Democrats in 2016 were overblown by the
| Trump camp. They exposed the ugly sausage-making
| processes of the DNC and called it corruption and
| treason, when both political parties operate the same
| way, and neither party committee is a direct democracy.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| You're not wrong. The GOP went so hard on Benghazi that
| they didn't have the bandwidth to go after actual
| scandals like Fast & Furious, pulling back from Syria,
| and Hillary hiding her health issues. IMHO, Benghazi was
| a positive event in terms of Democratic strategy.
| krapp wrote:
| I'll give you everything else but "Hillary hiding her
| health issues" was a meme as far as I know, basically the
| forerunner to "Biden has severe dementia"
| jimbob45 wrote:
| She gave a very canned response to her fainting while on
| video. She had the opportunity to look honest and
| forthcoming after Trump's obviously forged doctor's note
| and she wasted the opportunity.
| nostromo wrote:
| People called on the electoral college to overturn the
| vote of the people in 2016 --- and several did. I'm not
| sure how much more brazen you can be about trying to
| overturn an election's results.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presiden
| tia...
| augustt wrote:
| How much more brazen can you be? Turn on the goddamn news
| today. Show me a list of democratic congressmen who voted
| against certification in 2016. Show me when Obama
| pressured his VP to toss electors. Show me a barrage of
| completely bullshit lawsuits. Show a phone call from the
| incumbent asking to miraculously find votes.
|
| This "both sides" bullshit needs to stop.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I can't do 2016 but I can do 2005 - https://www.cnn.com/2
| 005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/
| augustt wrote:
| Hmm I wonder if Kerry had conceded by then...
| krapp wrote:
| I can do thousands of Trump supporters literally storming
| the capital by force at this moment, encouraged by a
| sitting President who has convinced them the election was
| stolen from him[0].
|
| [0]https://news.google.com/search?q=trump+supporters+stor
| m+capi...
| augustt wrote:
| You'll have no luck with this crowd. Surprising amount of
| literal traitors out here.
| [deleted]
| sonotmyname wrote:
| No, but as the past 4 years have proven, if the election
| results were reversed the Left would absolutely be doing
| so.
| citrablue wrote:
| This does not hold water. Did the left occupy the Capitol
| building in 2016 or 2000, when they won the popular votes
| but lost the presidency?
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Cynical view: The ban is supposed to drive down the price and
| motivate the seller.
|
| At the same time, its a nice way to look tough on China while
| actually doing nothing about China...
| jimz wrote:
| That's way too 4D chess. He's essentially a drag performer
| who primarily performs for himself. It's the only context in
| which anyone would ban products that Americans generally
| can't use or don't even know about, or write executive orders
| that can't actually be carried out, or tries to pull a coup
| through a court system that he doesn't have direct control
| over. It's like the fine art of gender impersonation or, for
| fans of The Crown, "Kinging/Queening", he's just
| presidenting, nothing to see here.
| takeda wrote:
| If we are using board games analogy, that's hardly a
| checker's game. If you are POTUS your opinion affects the
| market. You can easily affect the market.
|
| Imagine how easy would be to make money through stock
| options if you had the power to affect any stock to go up
| or down. Only ethics would stand in your way and if you
| think ethics are for loses, nothing is stopping you from
| doing that.
|
| If you want reduce your risk further, you could simply get
| paid by your friends from Mar-a-Lago (by purchasing
| expensive rooms in your hotel) by letting them know your
| announcement ahead of time and let them do the investment.
| That will also reduce connections to yourself.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Don't we think a lot more needs to be done about China and
| will Biden do more or less?
| mikepurvis wrote:
| For another hilarious analogy, Seth Meyers described the
| behaviour of the senators backing him up as "cosplaying as
| noble statesmen"; here it is queued up:
| https://youtu.be/umWOkozTejI?t=425
| js2 wrote:
| There was a "Stop the Steal" event in DC yesterday that
| Roger Stone attended and it is so incredibly bizarre I
| have trouble believing that I'm not watching a Mike Judge
| movie or SNL skit:
|
| https://youtu.be/USLCJ0mRq3M
| jcpham2 wrote:
| I have two words, "Thank you Jesus"
| ficklepickle wrote:
| He looks like a Dick Tracy villain
| coldtea wrote:
| > _That 's way too 4D chess. He's essentially a drag
| performer who primarily performs for himself._
|
| The President seldom if ever performs for himself on big
| decisions. There are so many lobbies and power interests
| moving their hands here and there, according to the tides
| of power.
|
| It's just convenient for the masses to believe the
| President to be some kind of idiot (despite the fact that
| he is the President and they are random people which
| couldn't get that position if their lives dependent on it -
| or even much easier ones to get).
|
| Trump is just uncouth and uncultured, with no filter. On
| some ways it's a disgrace. On others, it's a breath of
| honesty - between JFKs mafia types (and general non-
| worthiness, he was just made President by his family's
| money), Nixon's tapes, Reagans disastrous economics and
| policies, Bush's cowboyism, Bill Clinton's scandals, sex
| obsession and Epstein field trips, and Obama's backtracking
| on promises, warmongering, and empty rhetoric) most
| politicians are equally crass if not more, they just know
| how to not show it or show it in moderation.
|
| Since Trump doesn't come from a politics background, he
| hasn't internalized this automatic filtering, instead he
| has been brought up on sales and media businesses, so he
| automatically takes the role of salesman and entertainer.
|
| The Trade War with China thing was a long time coming for
| the interests of certain parts of the American
| establishment, and will be continued by Trumps successors.
| It wasn't some idiot's one-off.
|
| And in those cases, unless you're clearly on top of the
| other side, there are lots of false bragging and BS
| symbolic moves that don't amount to much, so expect more of
| the "Tik Tok" style gestures in the years to come.
|
| My 2 euro-cents.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I always had a soft spot for Clinton. His worst crime was
| getting a consentual blow job from a woman in her 20s. I
| never got why that mattered given the shit the others
| were up to...
|
| Trumps "trade war" was a storm in a tea cup at best. It
| was great cover for business as usual imho. I hope
| whoever takes it on actually fights it. He's sort of
| wrecked future efforts by alienating almost every other
| nation Ns doing nothing imho, so I understand by Biden
| doesn't want to "continue" it.
|
| We'll see I guess.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| DMCA, HIPAA, Whitewater, Travelgate, Waco
|
| People remember Clinton as being better than he was
| because they think he was railroaded over the BJ.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| People remember Clinton as being particularly good
| because he exited on an economic high note and was
| followed by 9/11, the dot-com crash and two decades long
| wars. Then combine that with all the people who aren't
| old enough to remember the news from back then who think
| it was just a blowjob and the blowjob wasn't more of an
| Al Capone tax evasion type of moment and it's pretty easy
| to see why he has such a positive reputation.
|
| Whether or not HIPAA is a bad thing is very much a matter
| of opinion. That's the one thing that's keeping medical
| info from being whored out like all our other metadata
| these days.
|
| The last uncontroversially good president we've had was
| born in the 19th century.
| therealx wrote:
| People remember HIPAA poorly? Ive worked very closly in
| the industry, and I think it was a net positive. It could
| have been better, but it sure beat what was there.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| I can summarize the thing about Clinton, if you weren't
| already butthurt over him being elected then you were
| just annoyed about the BJ.
|
| Far more damaging was NAFTA and letting China into the
| World Trade Association.
| jstarfish wrote:
| Ha, it was far from being "just a blowjob," nor even a
| single intern. That's just the only time he got _caught,_
| since all the other witnesses /victims had been
| gaslighted or coerced into silence.
|
| It's all in the Starr report.
| Natsu wrote:
| > His worst crime was getting a consentual blow job from
| a woman in her 20s. I never got why that mattered given
| the shit the others were up to...
|
| That was character evidence in a sexual harassment
| lawsuit from a different woman (Paula Jones) who claims
| that he tried to pressure her into non-consensual sex.
|
| Clinton was sanctioned for perjury due to lying about
| that relationship in court, appealed the ruling, then
| later dropped the appeal and surrendered his law license
| voluntarily.
|
| So there were elements of perjury and non-consensual sex
| here and your summary is incomplete.
| pjc50 wrote:
| I don't think the correct reference is the honorable art of
| drag but, either reality TV (recall Trump's history on _The
| Apprentice_ ) or "keyfabe" from professional wrestling.
|
| The link that went round about the analogies between QAnon
| and LARP also seems relevant here. If someone lives in and
| believes their own hype for long enough, have they created
| their own little bubble of reality?
|
| It's like watching someone try to perform a coup with a
| foam sword and a Nerf gun. On the other hand, a lot of bank
| robberies are done with fake guns; so the question is, how
| much does the plausibility of realness matter? All a bit
| Baudrillard for my taste.
| dubya wrote:
| Kayfabe appears to be correct:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkghtyxZ6rc
| [deleted]
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I'm never quite sure. Is he just a drag act like you say
| (he's definately that) or is there some weird background
| conspiracy as well? I like to think there is, but that's at
| least partly because I don't _like_ the idea there is
| nothing here but distraction. Who knows.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| More likely Lost down his own private-Idaho-rabbit-hole.
| dahfizz wrote:
| I used to think that Trump was secretly a mastermind who
| put on a certain persona in public that was advantageous
| for him. But as time went on, I became more and more
| convinced that he just does not have the capacity for
| something like that.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Apparently he's on all sorts of drugs (amphetamines and
| tranquillisers etc). It's entirely possible he's out of
| it most of the time...
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Everything he has done has boiled to down to only four
| reasons:
|
| 1. Money
|
| 2. Adoration
|
| 3. Revenge
|
| 4. Preservation
| thursday0987 wrote:
| do you actually believe that 1) Trump is the one coming up
| with these ideas, and 2) he just bans stuff willy nilly as
| some kind of masturbatory performance?
|
| is that really your understanding of Trump?
| AnonymousPlanet wrote:
| So when American companies invade the privacy of European
| citizens its okay, but when Chinese companies do the same with
| American citizens this is "digital totalitarianism"? Anyone care
| to explain this to me?
| [deleted]
| higerordermap wrote:
| Does US ban European apps? Does Republican Party / Democratic
| party inject a director into every big tech company? Then why
| should Europe ban US apps?
| exabrial wrote:
| Your assumptions in your otherwise sound argument are flawed.
|
| Alipay is _the_ Chinese government for all intents and
| purposes. 100% of your information for freely to the CCP for
| their purposes.
|
| We're not talking preferring one company over another, we're
| taking preferring a free market company over a state sponsored
| actor.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| It's not okay in any of these cases.
| Veen wrote:
| It's not difficult to explain. The American government acts in
| the interests of Americans (or attempts to do so). European
| governments act in the interests of Europeans. The Chinese
| government likewise. Their rhetoric reflects those goals.
| What's the alternative: governments that act against the
| interests of their population in order to conform to notions of
| morality that only really apply to individuals?
|
| Governments exist to serve a specific population, not humanity
| as a whole.
| jfengel wrote:
| In each case, you also have to consider the possibility that
| each government is acting in the best interest not of the
| governed, but of the individual or group doing the governing.
|
| Is this genuinely in the interest of America, or just in the
| interest of the person making the decision? That's a question
| you always have to ask, but it seems particularly pertinent
| in the case of a leader who has been issuing numerous
| baseless complaints about various opponents, whose actions
| have repeatedly been refused by courts, and who was denied a
| second term.
|
| So while it's true that the government doesn't need to act in
| the interests of anybody but its own citizens, it would be
| nice to know if this decision achieves even that much -- or
| if it's just spite.
| Veen wrote:
| > In each case, you also have to consider the possibility
| that each government is acting in the best interest not of
| the governed, but of the individual or group doing the
| governin
|
| That's absolutely true, which is why we have courts,
| representative legislatures, and elections. Methods of
| mitigating the corruption of the governing class are built
| into the system. It doesn't work quickly or perfectly, but
| it's better than autocracy.
| partiallypro wrote:
| China just jailed a number of pro-Democratic leaders in Hong
| Kong, and have now shown they are willing to pursue people
| outside of their own borders that are a threat to the CCP. I'm
| sure they will be using meta data to justify their arrests. I
| don't see how any reasonable person can compare the two.
| jshmrsn wrote:
| At a basic level, I agree there's not a fundamental difference.
| But I think it's reasonable to look at practical differences
| between China and the US and consider which one you'd prefer to
| be secretly recording your personal data. The US has cultural
| and constitutional support of free speech, due process, and
| independent judiciary. On the flip-side, the US has PRISM,
| theocrats, an insane president, and a history of covert violent
| foreign intervention. China has little support for freedom of
| speech, separation of powers, etc.. And is frequently accused
| of extrajudicially disappearing people for their
| speech/beliefs.
|
| I think at present I'd still significantly prefer the US over
| China to secretly collect my personal data (even if I wasn't a
| US citizen). It's certainly possible that difference will
| further erode over time.
|
| I don't necessarily mean to endorse banning Chinese apps, as
| that seems very problematic and arguably cuts against our own
| value system. It's always seemed very protectionist when China
| did that to us, and it seems the same when we do it to them,
| and comes with the same surface area for corporate corruption
| of our government.
| trasz wrote:
| Honestly? China doesn't have a history of getting anyone
| extradited for whatever reason, neither does it murder
| foreign citizens with drones.
| f6v wrote:
| But does this make a difference in practice? I've been to
| China only for short business trips, so I can't judge. But
| when I looked at the city and talked to people in China and
| outside of it, I didn't get an impression people are
| oppressed or suffering. I don't claim I have the evidence,
| but it's just that so many people here paint a grim picture
| and I'm afraid it's only based on US propaganda.
| nostromo wrote:
| Yes, it's very different. Here's a Chinese interrogation
| video of a "suspect" being interrogated for posting a
| comment mildly criticizing the local police on QQ:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiMLVYK4hEc
| jshmrsn wrote:
| How China Uses High-Tech Surveillance to Subdue Minorities:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-
| surveill...
|
| 53 Hong Kong democrats, activists arrested under security
| law: https://hongkongfp.com/2021/01/06/breaking-
| over-50-hong-kong...
| tzs wrote:
| It's also to a significant extent moot because much of the
| data that can't be gathered from banned apps in the US can be
| bought from data brokers.
|
| When your domestic privacy laws are weak enough to allow a
| largely unregulated marketplace in personal information and
| to largely allow domestic apps to gather and sell personal
| information, banning foreign apps that also do so won't keep
| such data out of foreign hands.
| csomar wrote:
| It's true the US has been promoting "freedom" throughout the
| world, but at the end of the day they should only care about
| their own citizens or interests.
| kube-system wrote:
| When American companies invade the privacy of European
| citizens, it's because Facebook is collecting marketing data to
| make a buck. The concerns the US has about these Chinese
| companies is not that these companies are collecting too much
| marketing data, but that the CCP has coopted them into doing
| espionage operations on their behalf. Note that the US _didn
| 't_ care about these Chinese companies back when they were only
| collecting marketing data. It has only been since Xi's recent
| consolidation of power and crackdown on the autonomy of big
| tech that these issues have been hot topics.
| hnarn wrote:
| GDPR applies for American companies in the EU, so to answer
| your question, no, it's not "OK".
| tyfytyf wrote:
| Some opinions from UK[1]. Although they're not part of Europe
| any more. But you got the idea.
|
| [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-31/china-
| and...
| switch007 wrote:
| We left the EU but we didn't drift out in to the middle of
| the Atlantic in the process :-)
| [deleted]
| tsujp wrote:
| America's foreign policy (as a government as evidenced through
| history and present-day) is to police and/or spy on the world
| but not to be policed and/or spied on.
| meepmorp wrote:
| Everyone wants to spy, nobody wants to be spied on. It's a
| typical part of what we call international power politics and
| it's been going on for roughly all of human history.
|
| I honestly don't understand the point you're tying to make.
| Are you just complaining that it's unfair?
| tsujp wrote:
| Yes, I know. The comment I am replying to states:
| Anyone care to explain this to me?
|
| So I am explaining it. If you want my own view: On this
| situation I don't care.
| meepmorp wrote:
| Sorry, my caffeine uptake seems to be a bit slower than
| usual today.
| buran77 wrote:
| I think the question was on the lines of "why do people
| think it's ok when their country does it but not ok when
| others do it". The answer if simple: ignorance and
| cognitive dissonance (hypocrisy?). Ignorance because most
| aren't even aware their own country engages in the exact
| same tactics and even far worse. And cognitive dissonance
| because "I _must_ be good so my opponent _must_ be bad "
| [0].
|
| [0] https://pics.onsizzle.com/our-blessed-homeland-their-
| barbaro...
| dgb23 wrote:
| That comes of as cynical and reductionist. I don't want to
| be spied on and I don't want my country to spy on anyone.
| cloverich wrote:
| Unfortunatley that's just the way the world works. We
| don't have world peace yet, and have plenty of countries
| that if not outright hostile in the rhetoric and stance,
| have the capacity to elect leaders who could change those
| stances. All of those countries have complex sets of
| relationships with one another, and its not a given that
| if your country is attacked (and is not the US or some
| other super power), that someone else will come and
| defend it. The concern over China is, of course, quite a
| bit more obvious given the _ongoing_ abuse of their own
| citizens.
| secondcoming wrote:
| That's not just America's foreign policy though. Even Denmark
| has an espionage unit.
| tsujp wrote:
| I'd assume everyone does; the person I am replying to asked
| for someone to explain it to them so I have.
| echelon wrote:
| I'm a liberal, but I agree with Trump on this. The world needs
| to stop China.
|
| China is stealing Western tech to gain an economic and
| strategic advantage. They're going to out-compete our tech and
| leave us in the dust. They have far more engineers that are
| willing to work "996". (Sure, founders might work "996", but
| our workforce doesn't/can't/won't.)
|
| Playing unfair isn't great, but it's not the most worrying
| component of this. Our opponent has concentration camps, organ
| harvesting, no free press, crushes dissidents, disappears
| billionaires. And this is a regime that wants world domination.
| This gives me nightmares.
|
| We should be doing everything in our power to disentangle and
| stop China.
|
| When China has a military that surpasses the US in terms of
| scale and tech, they're going to start invading and taking more
| than they already do. They've shut off water to Vietnam, set up
| shop in the energy/resource-rich South China Sea, etc. They're
| not going to stop.
|
| Our media is already censored and caters to Chinese tastes.
| None of our movies are ever critical of China. They're actively
| manipulating us.
|
| Western democracies aren't primed to fight this. This is such a
| lopsided fight. We have to start playing hardball.
|
| edit: I'm being censored right now. This is the game we're
| playing.
| projektfu wrote:
| In the West it's commonly believed that working too many
| hours reduces creativity and productivity in the long run. So
| that feature of the Chinese economy may be good for Western
| competition.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| The US has a decades long history of using it's vast military
| to crush anyone, even people living in literal caves with all
| the brutality of black sites, torture, murdering of entire
| villages of civilians, etc.
|
| US don't have the moral superiority to get anyone against
| China and that's sad and harsh but it's true. No one reading
| this thinks the US is any better and this is the US fault.
| When they starve entire countries to death over a 50 year old
| embassy attack, then who in the world will eagerly listen to
| them about which countries are good and which are bad?
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| Eventually this will become a battle of systems, and it is
| not clear that this time, freedom will win. The Chinese
| system works very well, and in some regards much better than
| the western model of governance. It feels very much that the
| western world is in decline - we can no longer coordinate on
| large-scale projects, or produce beauty. The aqueducts are
| still standing, but we can't build new ones.
| echelon wrote:
| > we can no longer coordinate on large-scale projects, or
| produce beauty
|
| This is some incredible malarkey.
|
| > The aqueducts are still standing, but we can't build new
| ones.
|
| SpaceX, Tesla, Moderna, Apple M1, Nvidia, OpenAI, Google
| Brain, James Webb telescope, the new Perseverance Mars
| rover ... what the heck are you talking about?
|
| > The Chinese system works very well
|
| Not for Uyghurs or political dissidents. Also, we just
| voted out the Republicans wholesale (!!) Can you do that in
| China?
|
| I'd take our system any day of the week over being
| disappeared for disagreeing with officials.
|
| As much as I dislike the anti-maskers, we have freedom. And
| that's so much better.
| trasz wrote:
| You voted between two parties that are largely the same.
| Not much different from China, tbh.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| > SpaceX, Tesla, [...] what the heck are you talking
| about?
|
| Capitalism works well both in the US and in China. Those
| are private companies, and I hope you don't try to list
| NASA projects. Elon wants to bring down the cost of space
| transportation to 10$ per Kg, a Space Shuttle launch used
| to cost 1.5B$. My point was about the public sector. Last
| time I checked, the high-speed railway they were trying
| to build in California added another billion $ to its
| budget. Meanwhile, feel free to look how much high-speed
| rail China has built in the last few years.
|
| > Not for Uyghurs or political dissidents.
|
| Just because a system works very well for the majority of
| its citizens doesn't mean it works for everyone. You are
| not refuting the central argument.
|
| > I'd take our system any day of the week over being
| disappeared for disagreeing with officials.
|
| You seem to have the impression I'd prefer the Chinese
| system. I don't. That does not mean you can't take a hard
| look at what they do better.
| craftinator wrote:
| Jesus, this reads like GPT-2 output. In a light skim it looks
| fine, but then you start actually looking at the structure or
| the writing and it falls apart.
|
| Your comment is full of (and I mean FULL, nearly every
| sentence) anti-Chinese assertions with zero factual evidence
| involved:
|
| > The world needs to stop China.
|
| > China is stealing Western tech to gain an economic and
| strategic advantage.
|
| > Our opponent has concentration camps...
|
| > And this is a regime that wants world domination.
|
| > Our media is already censored and caters to Chinese tastes.
|
| This is not an argument, it's bullshit. Oh don't get me
| wrong, some of it is probably true at some level, and Chinese
| foreign policy is just as acerbic as in the US, but without
| any evidence given, it's not worth reading.
|
| Which makes it funny that there are a bunch of comments just
| below where people chime in "spot on!", as if the parent
| commenter made some EXCELLENT points with his jumbled and
| disjointed word-vomit.
|
| What's going on here? Did I have a stroke or something? The
| words are just no longer making sense.
| echelon wrote:
| Seriously?
|
| That's your retort?
|
| My grammatical structure?
|
| Okay.
|
| Here's some sources. I mistakenly thought they were common
| knowledge:
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-
| harvests...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54277430
| hungryhobo wrote:
| remember Nayirah? how can i make sure this isn't another
| case of US falsifying testimony to justify it's own
| agenda?
| craftinator wrote:
| > Seriously?
|
| > That's your retort?
|
| > My grammatical structure?
|
| I never mentioned your grammar; you misinterpreted
| "structure" here. If you read past the first sentence,
| it's clear I'm referencing your logical structure.
|
| GPT-2 actually produces decent grammar, but not any
| context-aware logical structure to the text it produces.
| Just a bunch of disjointed sentences with keywords that
| all generally lie on the same semantic vector.
|
| More importantly, you are ignoring the entire rest of my
| argument. Thank you for posting some source links, those
| make two of your initial assertions more credible. What
| about the rest?
| f6v wrote:
| I've skimmed the articles you've linked to. However, I
| have an honest question: how do I decide whether the
| linked sources are trustworthy? Ok, there's a book by a
| guy who claims to have interviewed Chinese doctors and
| policemen. But why should I trust him?
| AlstZam wrote:
| > _The world needs to stop China._
|
| US (may) needs to stop China. For others countries it's not
| that clear.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _China is stealing Western tech to gain an economic and
| strategic advantage._
|
| Cry me a river.
|
| Western companies went there for cheap labor. They could've
| rethought this any time in the past 20+ years, when it became
| apparent Chinese companies aren't willing to follow US IP
| laws and keep buying the trinkets they (and at this point,
| only they) know how to make at a markup. Instead, our
| corporations still outsource manufacturing, and solve their
| IP issues by telling the people to tell the government to cry
| foul and do something about a now nuclear-armed nation that
| decided to grow past being a source of cheap labor.
|
| There are plenty of bad things to say about China as a
| country/government, but on the IP front, that's just funny.
| IP laws in the West are a ridiculous racket. For all the
| companies here talk about innovation, there's sure as hell
| more of it happening in China than over here.
| [deleted]
| consumer451 wrote:
| > edit: I'm being censored right now. This is the game we're
| playing.
|
| You are being downvoted outside the spirit of HN downvotes.
|
| It would be very interesting and cool of dang to investigate
| the accounts which are conducting this behavior.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Really? You're going to out-compete? What happened to the
| free market? What happened to the advantages of capitalism?
| You're worried about them becoming economically dominant
| because they work harder? Why does the US deserve to remain
| dominant then?
| zthrowaway wrote:
| Yup this is exactly the point. Everyone can throw around all
| the whataboutism they want in this discussion (which there
| will be plenty) but this remains true in the end.
|
| We're also I'll equipped right now to fight this, our culture
| is divided and most of the intellectuals in power are more
| concerned about seeing everything through the social justice
| lens. So anything we do against China for our own national
| safety is being chalked up as racism etc. China sees this and
| is taking full advantage. I hope Biden takes a strong stance
| on China domination so at least one end of the political
| spectrum can be convinced to get on board here.
|
| We can't just simply out battle evil regimes like we could in
| the past. Each major power (Russia, China, US) has weaponry
| that could destroy the world if unleashed against each other.
| We are at a turning point in world history. So we have to
| fight this on the economic level, banning apps is part of
| this strategy.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| US: "It's now latinx!"
|
| China: "Let's edit the genes of babies and make them 47%
| stronger."
| Ialdaboth wrote:
| Good point.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| European countries are free to take whatever actions they see
| fit against US companies.
|
| China is an authoritarian state and it's respect for the
| individual rights of people is nowhere near that of the US.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| > _European countries are free to take whatever actions they
| see fit against US companies._
|
| And the EU does. But ironically whenever that happens
| Americans argue that such action isn't about privacy but
| instead about the EU trying to promote their own domestic
| industries.
|
| Though I guess that same spin would likely be argued by those
| on the receiving end of the US/China ban too.
| marcinzm wrote:
| >And the EU does. But ironically whenever that happens
| Americans argue that such action isn't about privacy but
| instead about the EU trying to promote their own domestic
| industries.
|
| International politics isn't fair or just or honest.
| However that's been known since probably before written
| history. So of course the US will spin things with
| propaganda and false statements and whatever. You can't
| change it or impact it or do stop it directly. So blame
| Europe for not successfully countering it rather than the
| US for knowing how to play the game.
| buran77 wrote:
| > So blame Europe for not successfully countering it
| rather than the US for knowing how to play the game.
|
| Can this be applied to any situation where one party
| found itself (through error, inaction, incompetence,
| inability, etc.) in a position to be dominated or abused
| by anther party? Or is it only selectively applied based
| on personal preference or inclination? Because applying
| it selectively is exactly the double standards people
| (myself included) highlighted in this thread.
|
| This may be pragmatic but it's also vicious towards the
| losing party. Politicians or corporations bribing or
| abusing power to get away with anything know how to play
| the game. The people being abused or losing everything
| are to blame for not successfully countering them.
|
| Double standards are a good way to justify _anything_ to
| your advantage by simply flipping the argument the way it
| suits you. As I wrote in a previous comment, it makes for
| exceptionally low quality conversation.
| marcinzm wrote:
| In my view, yes, when the party being dominated or abused
| has massive power itself. This isn't about a small entity
| being abused by a large entity no matter how much you
| seem to want it framed as such. It's two incomprehensibly
| massive and powerful entities going at at with one losing
| due to its own actions.
|
| edit: This is the only view I see that allows the losing
| entity to learn from the experience and avoid it in the
| future. Any other view just results in the same thing
| happening again in the future.
| buran77 wrote:
| > when the party being dominated or abused has massive
| power itself
|
| The expected "relativistic" cop-out. "Massive" means
| nothing if your opponent has substantially more. It
| simply means that no matter how much you want to escalate
| they can take it a notch higher and you will suffer just
| a bit more than your opponent. There are examples
| literally all around you.
|
| > This is the only view I see that allows the losing
| entity to learn from the experience
|
| The _only_ way? It is _a_ way best used when everything
| else has failed, like education. Am I to understand that
| you learned everything from personal experience? If you
| truly believe things are only ever learned on your own
| skin then you understand close to nothing about the
| world, history, and consequences, not living through
| almost any of them yourself. Which explains the narrow
| view.
| patrickmcnamara wrote:
| I don't think Europe needs to counter it as American
| opinions on this sort of action don't matter to most
| Europeans. I think the user above was more likely calling
| out the HN community for its double standards with
| regards to this.
| ku-man wrote:
| "So blame Europe for not successfully countering it
| rather than the US for knowing how to play the game."
|
| Says the bully.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| So what?
|
| I genuinely don't get it. If the app spies on you so what?
| Facebook spies on you. So do Twitter and Google. The average
| person doesn't watch Citizen four or care how much these
| companies spy on them. The average person is happy to get
| free Facebook in exchange for them spying. Why can't Chinese
| apps do the same?
|
| It's all bull. What you're saying about China is true but it
| has nothing to do with AliPay vs Google/Facebook/Twitter
| swiley wrote:
| I'd add to this (as a US citizen) please take action against
| US companies. The last time, with Microsoft, it was a very
| good thing for the US, the EU, the World, and the internet.
| cpursley wrote:
| Is this really about human rights (while made in China
| iPhones are still sold in the USA)?
|
| Any chance that it's just protectionism against Chinese
| companies (Huawei, Ali)?
| buran77 wrote:
| There's a lot to unpack here. But no, European countries
| can't realistically take too many measures, mostly under the
| threat of economic and political retaliation. No more than
| Chinese citizens are free to take whatever actions they see
| fit against their leadership. We're _all_ free to take any
| action we want but it 's not freedom if we can't exercise it
| out of fear of retaliation.
|
| You can see this in action with most EU countries disagreeing
| with many sanctions imposed on US enemies but eventually
| caving under pressure from the US. Or when having to switch
| the frequencies used for the Galileo system to something that
| could be more easily jammed by the US.
|
| The US is exhibiting towards other countries the same kind of
| tyrannical behavior bent on maintaining power that the
| Chinese leadership is exercising towards its citizens. It's
| the age old need to maintain power, and the more power, the
| further you're willing to go to maintain it. From a global
| surveillance exercise where every human is spied on
| relentlessly, to meddling into most countries internal
| affairs to the point of changing regimes to suit them, to
| oppressing their own citizens. These are all publicly and
| officially documented issues. It's all great if and only if
| your interests align.
|
| If you cannot acknowledge this then you are certainly not
| prepared to have a discussion beyond "we're good, they're
| bad".
| bagacrap wrote:
| I don't think the US is the same as China even if the US
| isn't perfect. The CCP actually commits genocide, takes
| political prisoners, and its justice system is a kangaroo
| court. Compare that to the US which spies on people and is
| taken to court for even attempting to kill a citizen who's
| become an enemy combatant in a warzone and has a justice
| system which often invalidates the actions of the
| legislative branch.
|
| Europe with GDPR does set its own rules for how American
| tech can operate and penalizes them heavily for perceived
| infractions. So that continent is taking the actions they
| want to take which is their right. Beyond that, there are
| more examples: Spain did effectively shut down Google News,
| and I don't remember any retaliation.
| adrian_b wrote:
| It would be nice if US would be taken to court for
| everything done, but that is very far from the truth.
|
| For example the US is guilty of criminal negligence
| during the invasion of Iraq, when an important part of
| the historical heritage of the entire humanity has been
| destroyed.
|
| It would have been extremely easy to avoid that, and
| there were ample efforts to warn the US political and
| military leaders to take appropriate actions, but all the
| warnings from competent people were ignored.
|
| A common thief or vandal who destroys one picture from a
| museum might rot in jail, but US presidents or generals
| who have destroyed historical artifacts far more valuable
| will never be punished in any way.
| officeplant wrote:
| The US isn't the same, it's just worse as a whole over a
| longer period. What we've done to South America and the
| Middle East will impact those areas for decades more.
| We've got a lot of blood on our hands in the name of
| democracy, colonialism, and oil futures.
|
| Even more with how our soon to be ex-president pardons
| convicted war criminals on a whim.
| trasz wrote:
| USA actually performs genocide; its prisons are full of
| people convinced for political (mostly racial) reasons,
| see the justification for war on drugs; and it's courts
| can punish convinced murderer with a fee instead of
| proper sentence. Not mentioning crimes, which often end
| up with decorating the perpetrators.
| buran77 wrote:
| Look at the wars the US continuously waged over the past
| decades and count the the deaths and destruction. You can
| rationalize it any way you want if it makes you feel
| better, you can pretend it's a fight for freedom on one
| side, and a fight for oppression on the other, you can
| say those school children were just combatants. But in
| the end it's the same on either side: those with power
| kill to maintain it. Some kill locally, some kill
| globally.
|
| On the other hand the examples you gave are absolutely
| minor and barely noteworthy. I referred decisions with
| global impact, not inconsequential things like Google
| News being affected in Spain. Intel never payed the fine
| the EU imposed for unfair practices close to a decade
| ago. Facebook and Google barely saw a blip due to GDPR
| since it was basically (and legally it seems) rolled into
| their ToS.
|
| The real consequential things are the public support the
| US demands from the EU for sanctions or wars. For
| political and economical issues that involve far more
| than you mentioned as a counterpoint. For countless human
| lives lost.
| thunderbong wrote:
| A long time ago, in a 'Modesty Blaise' book, when Wille
| Garvin is incarcerated and the guard tries to cut a deal
| with him saying that he'll set him free - Garvin says "I
| already have my freedom, what you'll give me is liberty".
|
| I always think of this phrase whenever questions of freedom
| come up.
|
| And like you mention, all of us our free, but mostly our
| liberty is curtailed by external circumstances or by our
| own fears of retaliation.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Whataboutism is simply not a good justification for a
| country doing bad things.
|
| Go ahead and say that the US does bad things. But,
| regardless of that, we should _still_ retaliate against
| China for doing bad things to us.
|
| And you bringing up even more bad things that the US has
| done is not relevant at all, to how we should definitely
| still stop China from doing bad things.
| marcinzm wrote:
| > But no, European countries can't realistically take too
| many measures, mostly under the threat of economic and
| political retaliation.
|
| They can also threaten economic and political retaliation.
| That's international politics and negotiation and diplomacy
| in a nutshell. It's a dirty game but the rules have been
| known for centuries. Europe isn't some tiny South American
| nation, it's a global power whose GDP rivals the US. That
| it's failed to successfully do this is the fault of Europe
| and no one else.
|
| Europe has failed to protect itself against US power and
| now you seem to be upset that the US wants to not fall into
| the same trap in terms of China?
| buran77 wrote:
| See, you're not actually contradicting me, just finding a
| justification for why the US is to the world what China
| is to its citizens.
|
| > They can also threaten economic and political
| retaliation.
|
| Sure but threats and negotiations work if you actually
| have the bigger gun and leverage. Given that the US is
| both the largest economy and military power this feels
| like a moot point.
|
| > Europe has failed to protect itself against US power
|
| Yes, just like Chinese citizens failed to protect
| themselves against their leadership. They aren't just a
| tiny South American nation, they are 1.3bn people who
| want freedom. That they failed to successfully do this is
| the fault of the people and no one else.
|
| But really, the fact the EU stood quietly next to the US
| while the US tightened its grip on the world is indeed a
| failure of the EU (Europe, given that this started
| happening long before the EU). They took the easy road of
| growing in someone else's shade, even if post WW2 it may
| have been the best or only thing Europe could have done.
| This doesn't change anything about my characterization of
| the US, it's just a tangent.
|
| I'm not saying what China is doing is ok because the US
| does it too. But just like OP, I pointed out the double
| standards obvious even here on HN. Whether it's mis- or
| dis-information, ignorance, hypocrisy, cognitive
| dissonance, or whatever else you may call it, the fact
| that people hold 2 completely different and opposing
| opinions on the same kind of action differentiated only
| by "us vs. them" is a massive failure of those people.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| > ... they [Chinese citizens] are 1.3bn people who want
| freedom.
|
| Is there evidence that a significant portion of the
| population really do want more freedom? While I would
| hope so it's possible the majority there prefer the
| status quo. (Of course lack of evidence doesn't prove
| it.)
| buran77 wrote:
| I have no evidence either way, the truth might as well be
| in the middle (many like it, many hate it). In an attempt
| to show how "double standard" GP's opinion was I just
| repurposed the argument that one party failing to
| counteract an opponent which has more power than them,
| being dominated instead, is entirely the fault of the
| weaker party. I replaced "the EU" with "the Chinese
| people". To my surprise GP went on to confirm even this
| exaggerated interpretation of mine, later adding that
| allowing them to make the mistake and implicitly paying
| for it is the only way the weaker party will learn to be
| strong. Such opinions are far too cynical and extremist
| for my taste.
| marcinzm wrote:
| >Sure but threats and negotiations work if you actually
| have the bigger gun and leverage. Given that the US is
| both the largest economy and military power this feels
| like a moot point.
|
| China's growing influence and Russia's influence on
| international politics clearly show that it's not about
| absolute power but how you apply it. Europe is large
| enough and powerful enough that the US can't invade it or
| cause massive economic damage without significantly
| hurting itself. Europe has massive leverage in
| negotiations and politics and diplomacy. It just fails to
| use it likely because it's not unified enough to fully
| and quickly apply it.
|
| Please stop blaming Europe's diplomatic failures on
| external factors. All that does is ensure that they will
| continue to happen because you won't blame the government
| that is actually at fault.
| buran77 wrote:
| Replying this:
|
| > Please stop blaming Europe's diplomatic failures on
| external factors
|
| After I clearly stated this:
|
| >> But really, the fact the EU stood quietly next to the
| US while the US tightened its grip on the world is indeed
| a failure of the EU [...] They took the easy road of
| growing in someone else's shade
|
| Is a sign that you did not bother to read, let alone
| understand my comment. That is terribly disrespectful and
| a sign that you have no interest in a discussion, just a
| monologue of meritless opinions.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Your posts can be summarized as "Europe messed up in the
| past but now it's totally not their fault because the US
| is just too big to do anything." My post was "the US
| isn't that big and Europe has plenty of options so Europe
| is still messing up due to it's own fault even if you
| keep deflecting that point."
| buran77 wrote:
| No, my comments (direct response to OP's "why are we
| pretending what US is doing is different form what China
| is doing") can be summarized as "pretending China and the
| US are different is just un/mis/disinformed or
| hypocritical". They are both superpowers and they both
| resort to _any_ measures within their grasp to maintain
| or increase that power. Pretending otherwise is just
| euphemistically "double standards".
|
| The EU only appeared in the discussion as a reference or
| "witness", just like the Chinese people are used as
| reference for what their leadership is doing. You turning
| the discussion towards some EU blame for whatever isn't
| only a meritless distraction from the topic, it's also
| akin to blaming the Chinese people for not overthrowing
| the CCP. They are 1.3bn people, surely they have "massive
| leverage".
|
| I reiterate, you have no interest in reading or
| understanding any of my comments. The extent to which you
| perverted and rewrote my words just to fit whatever
| narrative you're more easily able to support really makes
| for low quality discussion. I have more than adequately
| made and supported my point and will politely withdraw.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| The best way to understand all this is that the US
| basically acquired Western European Empire in all but name
| after WWII.
|
| If you look at history, the US exercises about as much
| control of Western Europe as Rome did. Basically the areas
| were free to run their daily affairs but military matters
| went through Rome. Similar to now.
|
| The fiction lasted well throughout the Cold War but is
| starting to fray. It will be interesting to see what
| happens going forward.
| null0pointer wrote:
| I will not deny the atrocities the US has committed and
| will undoubtedly continue to commit. Any nation with that
| level of power will end up doing the exact same thing in
| order to maintain that power. It's no secret that China
| wants that power. However I'd much rather live in a world
| where the US has that power than China. I'm sure my
| personal bias play into it, being from a western (though
| not American) nation, but I'll try to remain objective.
|
| - The US has at least a two party system. It's not much,
| and is deeply flawed, but at least the governmental power
| is not completely unchecked. That and the government is
| ostensibly at the mercy of the people. Propaganda,
| disinformation, and manipulation aside, if a government
| does something egregious enough the people of the US still
| have the power to vote them out. The Chinese people do not
| have that power. Their government is much more top down and
| prescriptive. The only checking of power is the willingness
| of lower level people to enforce rules.
|
| - Freedom of Speech. Nobody is above criticism. Simple as
| that. Not being able to question the government is an awful
| situation to be in. Imagine a world where you could get
| extradited to China for saying something critical of the
| CCP online. I'll remind you that the CCP jailed 8 doctors
| in Wuhan last year for raising the alarm about the
| coronavirus, saying they were spreading false rumours
| online. No thanks.
|
| - From an ideological standpoint the CCP seems to be be
| hellbent on reclaiming lost territory and retaliating
| against the evil west who have wronged them for so long.
| The US has no such motivation, being relatively young.
|
| Please don't get me wrong. I think China is a beautiful
| country, having visited several times, and the Chinese
| people and culture are both wonderful. I just do not want
| to live in a CCP-centric world.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Maybe we should add to this that this is a unforceable ban
| (as the TikTok and WeChat bans demonstrate) probably mostly
| designed to annoy incoming Biden administration.
| puppymaster wrote:
| Not that hard for me. Americans have criticized, sued and
| raised awareness about their government misconducts, with
| little repercussions. Joseph Gordon-Levitt didn't get
| persecuted for playing Snowden. Adam Driver didn't receive
| state sanctioned intimidation for playing Daniel J. Jones.
| Director, screenwriters, producers and etc get to live their
| life normally.
|
| Can you imagine what will happen to Fan Bing Bing if she plays
| Chai Ling (One of Tiananmen Square student leader)?
|
| So to answer your question - no it's not okay. But I would
| expect HN audience to be able to see the obvious distinctions.
| echelon wrote:
| It's ironic that you mention Hollywood, because our studios
| are now catering to CCP sensibilities. You'll never see a
| film critical of China made domestically. Our studios want
| access to the Chinese market and they know that if they
| produce such a film, they'll be blacklisted.
|
| This is why we need top-down decoupling. China knows we're
| addicted, and they've got us in a good spot to continue
| growing off of our market.
| [deleted]
| hertzrat wrote:
| It's happening in gaming too. The most recent thing in
| memory was something Blizzard did, and apparently the word
| Taiwan is censored in all chats in PubG[1]
|
| [1] https://venturebeat.com/2018/11/15/chinese-censorship-
| affect...
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Isn't it the case that only 10 or so US movies are allowed
| in China in any given year? I figure that we optimize our
| 10 movies for China and then leave the rest alone.
| trasz wrote:
| McCarthy's commission existed till... early seventies?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The committee McCarthy chaired at the time of his notorious
| anti-Communist crusade was the Senate Permanent
| Subcommittee on Investigations, which still exists.
|
| You may be thinking of the House Un-American Activities
| Committee, which also spent some time doing similar anti-
| Communist witch hunts, which existed until being renamed as
| the House Internal Security Committee in 1969, and was
| abolished with it's functions transferred to the House
| Judiciary Committee in 1975.
| trasz wrote:
| Thanks. So it boils down to China being where USA was 50
| years ago, freedom of speech-wise?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Well, no, 63 years ago was _Yates v. US_ ; even through
| the height of the anti-Communist witch hunting phase, the
| US had a stronger protection of free speech rights of
| Communists than China has for dissidents today.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States
| joncrane wrote:
| It's rational. The US government exists to protect and promote
| the interests of US citizens and companies. So it is the US's
| job to protect its citizens from foreign surveillance.
|
| I'd say it's Europe's job to protect its citizens from foreign
| surveillance. It's not "OK" so much as "Not my job."
| toxik wrote:
| If only the European continent would form some kind of trade
| based union
|
| Edit: parent comment said something like "Europe is a
| continent"
| izacus wrote:
| Huh, why is WPS Office included here? Last I've seen it, it was a
| pretty good mobile/desktop office suite alterantive.
| publicola1990 wrote:
| The issue again is that seems an opaque action based on vague
| "national security" grounds. It certainly behoves the executive
| to demonstrate justification for actions before they are done.
|
| The proper thing would be to define due transparent process for
| determining legality of apps/services and subject all apps to the
| same set of rules.
|
| Executive in general shout not be acting like a dictatorship.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| > The order, which takes effect in 45 days ...
|
| US democracy can be seriously threatened by an administration
| incapable of using a calendar, apparently.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| The cynical part of me says this is a political stunt to make
| the Biden administration cancel this order making them "weak on
| China".
| splintercell wrote:
| Obama administration did some ridiculous environmental
| regulations this way which Trump rolled back and looked bad.
| papito wrote:
| Which ones?
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/02/climate/envi
| r...
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Usually people are referring to the Paris Climate
| Agreement in this context.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| It could actually work in their favor. Tag the old admin with
| being unreasonable, but still get some, albeit minor,
| concession.
| bovermyer wrote:
| This is an often-used tactic. First-term outgoing executive
| declares a bunch of policies last-minute that his supporters
| love, incoming executive cancels all of them.
|
| Since the policies were untested, they became symbolic rather
| than a demonstrably failed experiment.
|
| When the first executive tries for a second term later, they
| can use this as an example of how they tried to do X, but
| their replacement didn't even give them a chance.
|
| I've seen this exact thing done many, many times, and not
| just in the American presidency.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Economic and political disasters often trail policy changes
| by months or years as well so no doubt the next
| administration will be taking the blame for lots of other
| stuff this admin intentionally screwed up in their last
| year.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The "lame duck" government is a weird anachronism. The transfer
| of power should be significantly accelerated, and probably a
| lot of power transferred away from the presidency too.
| sneak wrote:
| If America wants to claim some sort of moral superiority in this
| stupid pissing match, it becomes quite difficult to do so when
| engaging in the same kind of bullshit state censorship that other
| countries routinely engage in.
|
| Oh well. Maybe this will accelerate the move toward app platforms
| that can't be so easily censored arbitrarily by the state.
| newdude116 wrote:
| I am not sure about WeChat pay, yes, there might be security
| issues. On the other hand, China is blocking a lot of western
| apps. From play store, facebook, gmail, whatsapp to tinder.
|
| And there are indeed cases you ask yourself what might be the
| real motivation of the owner:
| https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/06/grindr-sold-china-national...
| stuckindider wrote:
| >Ambar, an influencer, say she has seen inappropriate content on
| TikTok
|
| Hahahaha what is this??
| sthnblllII wrote:
| Wall Street is very concerned that the next occupy wall street
| will circumvent their payment processor blacklists and
| surveillance by using Chinese competitors that aren't controlled
| by US financial interests.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Why would Occupy Wallstreet 2.0 need payment processors? The
| big advantage (and weakness) of those movements was that they
| were decentralised and had no leader (or treasurer)
| sthnblllII wrote:
| Any political party that decides to fight wall street will
| find it incredibly hard when their bank accounts are closed,
| their paypal donations confiscated, and their credit cards
| canceled. Try paying your phone bill in cash. Occupy Wall
| street was quashed because it was a disorganized leaderless
| mess, and Wall Street would rather it stay that way.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I'm a bit incredulous of this. Has wall street ever
| actually done that? Here in the UK the last Labour Party
| was super left wing, actively said they'd cut 90% of
| financial services. They didn't get their accounts closed
| or their cards cancelled.
|
| Were Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren forced to use
| bitcoin for their groceries?
|
| The real pull Wall Street has is that its a profitable
| industry. It makes a shit tonne of money and you want it
| here because you want to tax it. Compare that to car
| makers, a low margin industry with big externalities that
| can't easily decamp to some other country.
|
| Wallstreet (The City is the UK equivalent) is also a major
| strategic asset. Cutting Iran off from Western listed
| companies and dollar transactions is a much bigger issue
| for them than sanctioning their leaders or blowing up the
| occasional general. The same for Zimbabwe or China: revoked
| access to capital markets is a big issue. To be able to
| revoke access to those markets, you need to have those
| markets.
| sthnblllII wrote:
| As a working class American why should I care about
| cutting off Iran from international bank transactions? US
| wages have been stagnant for 40 years while executive pay
| has ballooned.
|
| Yes. Dozens of small parties and political organizations
| have been targeted by finance in both the US and the UK.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Can you share an example of when financial services
| companies have deplatformed (is that the right term?) a
| political party in the US or UK?
|
| I agree you probably shouldn't care about Iran. I'm just
| saying that's why presidents and senators care. Also, you
| should care about all the jobs FS creates both at the top
| and further down. Without financial services not only
| would your taxes go up, you wouldn't get half as good a
| mortgage and there would be a lot fewer jobs across the
| economy...
|
| Edit:
|
| The only examples of account closures I can find are
| either for right wing groups (HSBC closed a load of
| those) or 1 democrat in Florida whose account was closed
| after she was told they couldn't accept cannabis cash and
| she said she'd pay that in anyway...
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Which was also among their biggest disadvantages as they had
| no coherent messaging.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Definately.
|
| Personal anecdote: I worked in finance back then at London
| Stock Exchange. The building we were in was next to St
| Paul's Cathedral, where Occupy London were setup.
|
| They were nice guys and girls, I went out to talk to them
| occasionally and bought them donuts and stuff. When I asked
| what they wanted, they couldn't tell me. I think I knew the
| movement was dead at that point. If you have no "demands"
| and what are people meant to do for you?
|
| Even brexiteers with their self contradictory demands
| managed to get something done.
|
| I think occupy was more like Woodstock (an event or
| experience) than a "movement" in the end...
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| That's not really necessary as long as they have a coherent
| message. Occupy had that, BLM has it, Antifa does, and none
| of these organizations are formally structured ones, they
| have no leaders, no HQ, etc. They are groups organized via
| common goals.
|
| I mean I'm sure they have some ring leaders, the people
| that organize the protests and do a lot of the leg work,
| and I'm sure they're on the Lists of the various agencies,
| but it's not like Trump can get on stage and do his "we got
| 'em" moment announcing they captured the leader of antifa.
| chad_strategic wrote:
| I can't remember is Facebook and Twitter allowed in China?
| NationalPark wrote:
| Does China's behavior set the standard you hold your own
| country to, or do you think we can do better?
| chad_strategic wrote:
| For the most part I believe countries act in their our
| economic interest. If its banning products or services,
| spying or starting wars.
|
| I don't really draw this out to an ethical debate... But if
| the everybody is playing dirty (Americans, Europeans,
| Chinese, etc) What do the country gain by following the
| rules?
|
| Maybe I'm cynical, but I really don't think any country is
| capable of up holding up the standards. (Even the Israelis
| spy on the Americans and "we" are supposed to be best
| friends) All countries distribute humanitarian assistance,
| but we all know that increase influence.s
| caminocorner wrote:
| How do you suggest the US can do better, if they've let China
| continue this asymmetric behavior for nearly two decades? If
| China hasn't been participating in free trade fairly, do you
| think the US should continue letting that happen for another
| two decades?
| insert_coin wrote:
| Be honest.
|
| Make a law that announces everyone in the world who can and
| cannot do business in the US and what's expected of them,
| and then follow it.
|
| Do not ban arbitrary companies for whims and which hunts
| and vendettas even tho they are complying with all the same
| rules as the rest.
| asiando wrote:
| No, like toddlers we just need to match and retaliate.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-06 23:02 UTC)