The US' international economic dominance is predicated on a (1) pronounced lead in certain industries and (2) a simply massive economy, which combine to (3) let the US set the rules of international "fair play." The US is where you find the thing you want to buy, and the people you want to sell to. You want access? Play by our rules - everywhere.
Tik Tok does not just threaten US data. It threatens our lead in a critical industry (1), and comes from a country that minimizes the impact of US economic might (2), meaning that China can set their own rules of "fair play" (3). Banning Tik Tok isn't to protect US data; that's totally missing the point. It's to protect the American ability to set international norms.
From that lens, this is certainly hamfisted, and I certainly don't believe views it like this, but you can damn well bet the policy nerd drafting this EO is thinking this way.
I don't agree with this just on fiat from Trump, but the USA is in its rights to give Chinese the same sort of treatment that they give the USA. If you don't play by China's rules you can't be in their market, and those rules are set up to benefit China only.
In this case TikTok is getting the same treatment US tech giants have. If that is not "fair play" I don't know what is.
https://www.businessinsider.com/nba-china-feud-timeline-dary...
In one way, it's existential: the march of authoritarianism is undoubtedly accelerated by nation-states manipulating social media.
But in most others, I wouldn't get too worked up: it's more about mundane garbage ("preserving the spirit of financial disclosure processes in the context of international capital market access") - nerd sh*t.
He's saying "TikTok should not gather invasive data ... neither should US-based company".
If you oppose that, then you're basically saying "the US wants to have cake and eat it too". I guess every country for itself "works"... for a certain definition of "works".
Let's avoid regression to Chinese standard please.
It's not just a fair playing field war between US and China, but between China and rest of the world. Even India, whose companies are not allowed to operate in China under fair play rules banned TikTok only after the Chinese incursion across the LOC.
I really don't know what to make of this.
It’s why Microsoft and Apple are available in China.
Here is a Google example from when I lived in China: Google was at the time competing with Baidu over the search image market in China. My home internet was fast and with great quality. Only Google image search results had very often problems loading image previews. Its not that it "didn't work". It just failed "a little", maybe half the images in the results pag didn't load. So Google image search wasn't really blocked. It could have been total coincidence that it was like that for years and only for Google image search. The site that was coincidentally competing over the lead in the Chinese search market against a Chinese company. After some weeks, I started using Baidu image search, even though their result quality was worse. But at least it worked. I am sure many people in China did. That's "competition" in China.
They just relinquish certain strong hold to a sovereign nation, like they have to host their data center inside China (both politically important, and economically beneficial). And they also risk their data being stolen (or so they claim).
Imagine, if a Chinese company wants to operate in US but refuse to comply local regulations, what will happen to that company?
Fb, Google and others are banned from China because they refuse to cooperate. What about Tiktok?
But we use a ton of Chinese tech software and hardware outside of Tiktok, are they gonna ban them all?
And tablets. And routers. And smart TVs. Which basically encompasses pretty much all of the network-connected appliances in the average home.
(And even if a "a lost" of the rest of IoT devices don't, would you want to bet your data security on it?)
If they have enough leverage over you (or access through you to your secure systems), they will use it.
My point was, if I have to be concerned about privacy (in fact I actually am, see above) why should I fear about a foreign government while my own one is without any doubt more interested in knowing what I think? Of course should one day I become an important public figure, or a key person in some critical environment, all the data about me would suddenly become gold; that's a very valid point by another commenter. Of course my post was from the point of view of someone who doesn't plan, nor could even choose, to become one anytime soon.
(1) hence my comments where very often I argue about closed device drivers and blobs, which are the best possible place for planting spyware.
you just posted this to a social media site
The point out preferring one's data in the hands of a regime that doesn't have jurisdiction to send jack booted thugs to kick in one's door still stands.
I think you vastly overestimate 1) how much a functional human in modern society actually needs any of this garbage and 2) how much of that data and metadata is meaningful in regards to someone's privacy.
For a moment think: your data goes to China. China learns over the years about you, including something that can be used against you. At some point in future you are in a position at a company or have a government position where China has an interest in you, at that time it can use the data collected over the years to compromise you.
If you think that will never be the case, let’s go further, what about your spouse or even further your kids when they grow up.
Governments play the long game.
But I think it's possible you aren't thinking of all the contingencies that are created by a foreign government having info about people in this country.
No, because that isn't the solution to the problem being addressed. The administration doesn't want to protect privacy. It wants to ban TikTok.
Besides, this move isn't coming from the actual concern for citizens' and residents' privacy. It comes from the idea that economy and pandemic and terrible polling numbers for Trump mean he needs a distraction, as per his usual pattern. It was TikTok but it could have been catalytic converters or grandmothers or anything, just to get people talking about something else.
Boeing is a company backed by an entity which has plans for (and has achieved) global dominance and is increasingly not aligned with European interests.
I know there's a huge difference between the US Government and the Chinese Government, but that difference is decreasing. And Facebook, well I simply do not trust them.
Honestly, I fear what this is leading to.
Airbus and Boeing pretty much go toe-to-toe, no?
Also Boeing still has the very possible abandoning of the 787-Max and the WTO dispute resolution (that still hasn’t been implemented) looming over them.
Except for the part where the NSA is doing political and industrial espionage on Airbus on behalf of Boeing and the US gov so they can throw a wrench in Airbus's negotiations with other governments.
It seems like it would be a good thing if you didn’t have these billion-user social networks, operated by foreign entities that are likely to use them to spread propaganda, censorship, election interference, etc.
Countries competing for the attention of monopolistic companies will just provoke a tranfer of wealth from the citizens of all countries to those companies (see: tax havens).
Boeing as a company producing a massive amount of planes for the EU is absolutely aligned with European interests. Their current scandal is also a scandal in the US and they've also been (and continue to be) punished and investigated for it.
You can't just say "but Facebook!" in response to TikTok, a company siphoning data into a blackhole in China at the behest of the CCP and engaging in censoring as befits the CCP. The current status quo hurts everyone whether in the US or the EU.
The irony is that each of the entities has plans for global dominance, which is incompatible with the plans and interests the other one has.
The sad part is that it turns out the US is willing to forgo its values if this gives them a leg up on China. Makes any future rhetoric on values and morals seem a bit empty. *
* It has been pointed out that perhaps "empty rhetoric" wasn't the best choice of words. Maybe "rhetoric that no longer has any basis in reality whatsoever" sums it up better.
[0]: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catos-let...
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/swedish-artist...
[2]: https://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-...
[3]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-depo...
Oh please… 28 US states have actual legislation to prohibit state offices from doing business with companies or individuals that even threaten to boycott Israel.
Not far from how NBA employees get censored by China.
And there is more to come…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Ac...
Blasphemy laws have just been repackaged essentially under "anti hate speech" laws. They're palatable to the media and at the same time selectively-applicable which is ideal for population control.
In this particular case China's plan to achieve global dominance is in stark opposition to the US's plan to maintain global dominance.
I really don't know what you're trying to say. If the USA achieved global dominance, there would be no China. There would only be the USA. Globally. Obviously, that's not the case.
That's really not what those words mean. "Dominance" is the fact or state of being dominant, not the state of being the only one in existence. So what I said is that the US dominates the world (geo-political, economic, military, etc.).
Let's put it in more simple terms. If Mike Tyson dominated a boxing match it really doesn't mean he was prancing around alone in the ring. Just that if anyone contested that dominance he'd punch them harder. And if that didn't work he'd bite of their ear. Which is a far more appropriate analogy than it would first seem.
And that day they would be no US West and East coast... populated. You know what I mean.
Also, China owns the US economy by buying its debt. Try to crash down China, and look how the Dow Jones gets more sunk than the Marianas.
Now of course in the case of nation states, agreements are changeable by military and economic force, but in effect you would have to do more than simply hold debt to affect another counties economy.
I do think going to war with China is useless. The loss of life would be immense and I see no reason for people to die for ideological purposes. However, a Cold War is coming. No longer, can we pretend that China and the US will become genuine parters, with shard long term goals and policies. If we must be competitors, then it’s best to do it honestly and openly.
They have global dominance, and they got it long ago. The issue at play is not that they want it, it's that they want to keep it.
Yet in other developed countries (like many in Europe) where Christianity is no longer the dominant cultural institution, there is more social cohesiveness.
Religion in the US has been weaponised for political ends and became a means of tribal division in society.