Perhaps due to a change in administration to one that is willing to engage in retaliation because globalisation is less popular with its voter base.

> Put in specific data protection/privacy laws and regulations applicable to all players, not hound a single company without being able to prove any wrong doing in their part,

The argument here is that china's protectionist trade practices should normally be addressed through the WTO but that was seen as ineffective because any compliance efforts were in name only.

TPP might have addressed some of this, but that was also dropped due to public opinion.

China bans Facebook despite the company offering to comply with censorship/propaganda rules (and Zuckerberg even offering Xi to name his child). The ban is unambiguously due to strategic concerns over a foreign company having access to user data. The change in US policy towards Chinese apps is not retaliation, it's just the US coming to the same conclusion as China that letting rivals foreign powers control media companies is unwise.

So Europe/India/everyone else should ban US apps? It becomes a slippery slope.

> the US coming to the same conclusion as China that letting rivals foreign powers control media companies is unwise.

If you’re worried about a foreign company manipulating media then put in laws and regulations. That way American companies can be hold accountable to the same standards by other countries as non-American companies and creating a level playing field.

On the other hand i am not aware of any major damage caused by 10K or so troops stationed here or there.

Are Europe and India concerned by a US company controls popular social media companies? Evidently not enough to ban them, and if in the future if they are then that's their prerogative.

> If you’re worried about a foreign company manipulating media then put in laws and regulations.

They did: The US put laws in place that allows the executive to block commerce when it is deemed a strategic threat. And now those laws are being exercised against a media company controlled by a geopolitical rival.

Seems like this idiotic move did not win him any favours. Maybe for once they made the right call.

There were negotiation and Zuck showed the flexibility of a seasoned political acting genius (I am sure he will regret this segment in his life eventually). But there were never fully public conformation that FB intends to bend over the law in China.

Please provide a link.

If GB indeed plan to comply the law, then I can assure anyone that Zuck intends to use it's business empire to advance his political ambition. That probably would be worse than Hitler's ascension...

But then again, China likes to say “Do not interfere in our internal matters”; the US can say the same thing.

I am not American by the way, so have no beef in this.

So hey, I am all popcorns on this at the moment. The next few years are going to be interesting.

There is a common misconception that corps like Google Facebook were banned without legitimate reason. The truth is that China has outrageous internet law that Google Facebook would violate their meal standard in order to operate inside China. Google claims Chinese government hacked their corporation data centers.

Nuances ate everywhere...

You can only turn a blind eye so long to a competitor’s unreasonable actions (in this scope, IP/trade secrets and the like). As a US citizen, I endorse any actions intended to remove or subdue CCP influence, power, and control (domestically or internationally). None of this comment should be construed as a sleight against the Chinese people in aggregate.

but with Guantanamo Bay detention camp, bombming Iraq with fabricated evidence and killing hundreds of thousands innocent Iraqi people. Oh, let's not forget how Uncle Sam extended their territory by slaughtering Native Americans since 15th century. You even have a festival to celeberate the genocide and conquest of Native Americans by colonists.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24028512

Easily fact checked. China doubles the US on both Co2 and Methane emissions.

Edit: Got downvoted, but it's still true the above post is outright incorrect information.

Additionally, USA has had decades of relative prosperity to clean up its emissions, but did nothing.

Meanwhile China has more electric busses than the rest of the world combined, more hifgh-speed raio than the rest of the world combined, lead the world in investment in renewables and nuclear and are on track to meet their Paris accord commitment, unlike US.

Furthermore this is a production based accounting of CO2, if you instead do consumption-based accounting of CO2 then you will see a dramativally more savage picture.

Reminds me of some downplay of China’s progress by looking at averages

With that said, it’s entirely feasible to transition faster to not needing to emit carbon to raise or maintain quality of life. As I mention above, everyone should be accountable for that.

If we directly translate this to Chinese, the statement doesn’t make any sense. Is “pursuing prosperity” a right?

Looks like between the two cultures there might be quite a diverge Of the definition of “right”

Otherwise though I agree with what you said and China probably has been making a good progress already. Believe it or not, low Carbon life style is promoted by the official media

Navarro doesn't speak Chinese, and before he joined the Trump administration, he had hardly even been to China. In recent months, he's been promoting anti-Chinese conspiracy theories about CoVID-19. He's an ideologue who believes that the US is in a death struggle with China.

So if you're wondering why US policy has changed, looking at who's in office is a start. The scary thing is how successful the Trump administration has been in promoting its views on China among the public.