Unfortunately we can, we do, and we will continue to, unless we make it more expensive for companies to submit to than to oppose such forces.
Given the role money plays in our legislative process, I think we will be seeing more of this.
>Enable foreign police to collect and wiretap people's communications from U.S. companies, without obtaining a U.S. warrant.
>Allow foreign nations to demand personal data stored in the United States, without prior review by a judge.
>Allow the U.S. president to enter "executive agreements" that empower police in foreign nations that have weaker privacy laws than the United States to seize data in the United States while ignoring U.S. privacy laws.
>Allow foreign police to collect someone's data without notifying them about it.
Any kind of extra-legal and arbitrary "making an example" of a company domestically would be disastrous to confidence in the market.
The better implementation of your objective would be to create a policy (enshrined in rules) first, then go after anyone who violates it.
The market is in place to serve the country, not the other way around. Corporate charters are given by government and can be revoked. Colluding with a foreign country that we have a strained relationship with should be grounds for at least looking at the company much more closely.
Which leads us to a bought political system, at the moment at least.
Some would say it has always been bought, because markets are made to serve people (some of those people may have different governments), and the people running the markets will use that leverage over others in varying degrees…
Here's some heavily sarcastic coverage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_cURws4UaY
Could you provide any actual evidence of any "fake news" that they've broadcast? Or in 2018 is simply an association with another group proof enough?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tang_Dynasty_Television
This is their parent company and due to their onesidedness I wouldn't trust anything that comes from their mouth. As well as I wouldn't trust anything coming from the mouth of Breitbart, InfoWars, or any news site from China itself.
At least, they're one of very few sources that report on China negatively from a strategic, big picture perspective. To listen to you, one might think everything they say is a lie, speaking of fake news. I guess that's why you dodged my question.
"The station was founded in 2001 by Falun Gong practitioners as a Chinese-language broadcaster"[1]
They produce Shen Yun, which has a strong Falun Gong backing and definitely has an agenda, what with the final act being a giant tsunami that comes in and kills all those in the mainland[2]
They are partnered with the Epoch Times which is considered one of the biggest mouthpieces of the Falun Gong[3]
The Epoch Times, New Tang Media, and China Uncensored are all clearly biased in one direction. I really don't know how you can say they aren't, but they don't even try to hide the fact sometimes. You have to realize that when you listen to them as you have to see their biases.
>At least, they're one of very few sources that report on China negatively from a strategic, big picture perspective.
Are you really sure about that? China uncensored doesn't go into high journalism and most of the time just dips their foot into news articles with clickbaity headlines and overly sarcastic monologues. I would much prefer something done by the FT, Economist, or NYT.
As to why I consider them fake news. I really don't trust news at face value from China Uncensored the same way I don't trust articles from places like Breitbart. They have a way of over-exaggerating the news and twisting it into an anti-China stance. I always go find extra sources and never dwell on their one single source.
[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108190438992282143
[2]https://www.denverpost.com/2008/01/09/chinese-new-year-embra...
Yes, you can, but if your goal is reaching correct conclusions, that's not a great strategy (although it's an extremely popular one nowadays, even on HN).
> The Epoch Times, New Tang Media, and China Uncensored are all clearly biased in one direction. I really don't know how you can say they aren't
Neither can I, but I'm not sure why we're discussing this because I have said no such thing. What I did say is that I disagree with your broad classification of them as "fake news", and I offered you the opportunity to cite some specific examples of things they've said that aren't true, which you've now passed on twice. To me that is interesting, because I am increasingly curious about how the human mind works. Is it interesting to you?
> Are you really sure about that? China uncensored doesn't go into high journalism and most of the time just dips their foot into news articles with clickbaity headlines and overly sarcastic monologues. I would much prefer something done by the FT, Economist, or NYT.
No, not overly sure. I've never encountered anything very negative on China elsewhere, but then I haven't really been looking for it. If you could point me to any particular China-critical articles from any of those publications I'd certainly read them.
> As to why I consider them fake news. I really don't trust news at face value from China Uncensored the same way I don't trust articles from places like Breitbart. They have a way of over-exaggerating the news and twisting it into an anti-China stance. I always go find extra sources and never dwell on their one single source.
In that sense I would agree that they're "fake news" (with quotes); I reserve the term fake news without quotes for actual lies rather than bias, or bias while claiming impartiality, like mainstream news in most Western nations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/world/asia/china-africa-b...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN9wFtiJtBM
China Uncensored's video barely scratches the surface except for some things that China does in Africa. The other is an actual journalism piece which goes indepth on what people in Africa think of the situation while also going forlaying into China's involvement with Africa.
https://www.economist.com/news/china/21737283-it-has-problem...
This article too goes into actual journalism with an indepth review on China's relations with race and how they see race as well.
https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21737558-clear-think...
From the economist and another "China-critical" piece. I'm going to be honest though, most articles regarding China from the economist or Financial Times are going to be "China-critical", just varying degrees on what you consider critical to be. Most aren't going to be overly pessimistic about any small thing China does (as China Uncensored does for everything) and most are going to err on the side of mild concern.
China Uncensored likes to over-exaggerate a lot of things. Problems come from their clickbaity headlines and lack of acting like an actual news provider.
You made an equivalency without explicitly stating that they were the same or equivalent. The equivalency you made was that both China and the US could be mistaken for democracies, when in truth only the US could be mistaken for a democracy (since it is a representative democracy). China is well known to practice authoritarian rule by law through Communist Party of China and so it reasonably wouldn't be confused as a democracy.
So in your opinion both Gulf Wars had nothing to do with the strong influence Saudi Arabia has over the USA and in specific, the Bush family?
We can't let backwards dictatorships have any say in how a democracy is ran.
Marion should be made an example of in the US. Say a wink wink nudge nudge major tax audit of every single Marion hotel.