Banning something unless they/it has provabley broken US laws, merely out of spite and retaliatory motives isn't something that is acceptable in a democracy like the US.

Also it appears the 'national security' threat of tik-tok seem way overhyped, it is like a country speaking of Instagram as a national security threat.

Neither apple not Google has found TikTok problematic enough to pull it from their app stores.

Such claims of threat to 'national security', needs to be viewed with a certain skepticism, as these seems to get easily accepted by US lawmakers without sufficient, dispassionate analysis.

Also in general banning apps/services should not be the purview of the government under any reason. Why should the government dictate which apps an individual can use on their own phones/computers?

> Banning something unless they/it has provabley broken US laws, merely out of spite and retaliatory motives isn't something that is acceptable in a democracy like the US.

Why?

Stuff like this has happened all the time in plenty of democratic countries across the world. Not sure I see the issue (like my EU example). It’s just a state wielding economic power as opposed to a corporation.

EU requires data to be based in the EU. So a US equivalent would be to require data to be based in the US, not banning whatever tickles its fancy.

Consistent rule of law allows economic actors to make proper planning and decisions. If the US wants to ban Chinese apps, it should pass a law saying that.

> So a US equivalent would be to require data to be based in the US

Right, isn’t that what a sale to Microsoft would essentially do?

The metaphor here doesn’t cover the fact that China has banned tons of American companies — should the US not respond in turn? I don’t know what the right response is tbh but I don’t think they should feel compelled to just shrug it off.

Even sale to Microsoft would looks legally dubious I think, if federal government is seen to be involved in brokering such a deal or ordering Microsoft to do it. I don't think the federal government or at least the executive should have that kind of authority like asking/forcing Microsoft to do a specific thing.

I don't know about China, but US executive and legislative have limits to their authority and I doubt such arbitrary bans are within that.

US seems least bothered about US apps/companies not being allowed in China and other countries, and retaliation for such does not seems the motive for US actions in this topic.

Anyways such straight reciprocal actions are often the naivest, and most simplistic of possible responses anyway.

> I don't think the federal government or at least the executive should have that kind of authority like asking/forcing Microsoft to do a specific thing.

No you misunderstand - Read the article, TikTok would sell off to keep operating in the US (just like Amazon had to sell off data centers to operate them in the EU). The US government wouldn’t be forcing Microsoft, just saying if you want to operate with American data you have to be on American soil.

> Anyways such straight reciprocal actions are often the naivest, and most simplistic of possible responses anyway

But you haven’t offered an alternative. They should respond, I don’t think this is an unreasonable way to do it.

I am not sure this is even a response to anything. It looks like the first US move in a new confrontation with China. Merely treating is as a response, isn't sufficiently strong explanation in my opinion.

More over I don't think President has power/authority to ban anything at all, let alone apps on privately administered app stores. President isn't a dictator elected by the people.

There might be legitimate grounds to take action against an app/service like data breaches or copyright infringement, even terms of right violations, but nothing of that seems to be the case. Even if it was the case, it would have to go through the legal justice system.

From what I have seen, the theory of threats to national security being bandied about isn't substantial nor concrete enough to hold in courts.

So if TikTok does not run afoul of our laws, there shouldn't be grounds for banning that or any other app citing vague and theoretical national security considerations.

> just like Amazon had to sell off data centers to operate them in the EU

You're saying amazon don't own their EU data centers? That's surprising to me. Got a source for that?

> I don't know about China, but US executive and legislative have limits to their authority and I doubt such arbitrary bans are within that.

There are not such limits on the authority of the Chinese government.

American brands have a huge presence in China. Chinese brands do not have much presence in the US. It seems like whenever a Chinese company appears to be making inroads, it gets banned: ZTE, Huawei, TikTok.

This distinction of brands is notable, in my opinion, as it is largely specific to Chinese brands rather than Chinese products and even then there are exceptions such as Alibaba and Xiaomi.

The US government allows China to export cheap, relatively low-tech goods to the US. However, it's clear now that the US government will ban any Chinese high-tech company that gains significant market share in the US. In some cases, such as ZTE and Huawei, it will go much further and attempt to put them out of business altogether, using sanctions and threats (e.g., threatening to end intelligence sharing with the UK unless it stops getting Huawei equipment).

I disagree. Trade is bilateral. If China plays dirty and bans apps left and right we should encourage them to stop doing that by retaliating, much like we do when they give state aid to their private companies (which skews the free market in their favor).

While this move seems nothing related to any ban by China on US apps.China hasn't banned any major US app within a recent window of time, so I do not think that is the impetus behind this move.

I do not buy that we should do anything by breaking our own constitutional guarantees, by letting the executive mislead the public in assuming powers that they simply do not have.

The President don't have authority to do this, and should not be having it in good sense.

You think China is the only government that engages in state aid?

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-moderna...

You're confusing a pure "free market" with "democracy." A democratically elected government can ban anything they want, as long as it is constitutional (and this clearly is). A democratically elected government can be as logically inconsistent as they want. And if these are things the people want as well, then the government will get re-elected.

America has never been a pure "free market," it's a mixed market, just like every current economy in the world.

The opinion seems to be that there is no authority with the president/executive to promulgate such a ban, so I doubt it is within constitutional limits to do so. However, there is some limited commercial/trade related measures available, but these are rather new and untested, and will likely expose the federal government to litigation.

The question is about how can something that isn't illegal or that hasn't evidently broken laws be banned, and that too without even a semblance of a fair process.

Was TikTok investigated, if so what was found? Have they been asked to show cause? Have they broken laws?

See: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/24/trump-cant-ban-tiktok-f...

I think it's wholly different to have data sovereignty laws on citizens (IE; keeping data within your regulatory/legislative area) vs the _forced sale_ of a public company.

It is fair to retaliate. But it's a sort of whataboutism. The problem is the direction the competition is heading.

You see, China built the Great Fire Wall. A bizarre thing is more and more countries are considering to do the same seriously.

So what's next? There are also a lot of reports about the concentration camps. I don't know how accurate are those horrible reports, but you definitely don't want your country competing on building more concentration camps.