Well, they chose a trash leader and were then surprised that said leader did not respect norms shrug.
It doesn't take huge technical skills that exist only in SV to build alternatives to US internet companies. The reason why China and Russia have their own alternatives but the EU and UK don't is because they let US steamroll into their markets. FB and other US companies were early or had better funding and got the lead, network effect kicked in and they dominated. When a country blocks you off, your funding and network effect is no more.
In other words, the moat of the US internet companies is not their tech but their network and that network can be made anaemic by countries who want to have their local alternatives, as seen with Russia and China.
Even in places where that tech expertise doesn't exists someone will build white label solutions and sell them.
Why do you say "steamroll"? They came in because they were allowed in. Are you now making the case that protectionism is good and EU/UK should prefer their own while blocking foreign companies? If it was that easy then why wouldn't they just do it to encourage domestic activity?
The rest of the world is not going to change just because we start to treat China the same way they treat everyone else. Perhaps you should read up on how India and other countries are also defending against China.
How do you think US corporations were able to grow to global scale without registering legal entities in the %95 of the world? Because due to the US pressure and advocacy for free speech not letting Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others to operate was considered a matter of free speech in the pro western world. Russia and China did not played that game and had homegrown versions.
US is not going to win China and is about to lose the non-US wester countrieds by blocking TikTok. After the TikTok case no political activist will have credibility when the next dictator or would be dictator blocks Twitter. In places like UK/EU where local companies aspire to compete with the US ones you can expect much more hostile environment for the next US startup because no longer the issue would be a matter of freedom but national security.
US companies are welcomed because they provide investment, jobs, resources and opportunities that weren't otherwise available or developed domestically. This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech (which again isn't a law and isn't even the same in other countries).
China specifically acts against free trade and is now being treated the same way (after decades of being unfairly tolerant to them). This is no different than tariffs and sanctions against other troublesome nations. Nobody is going to start blocking US companies because of this.
The US is actually a fairly open market and will continue to be for some time.
The US is generally the opposite of 'protectionist'.
Europe et. gain tremendously from G, MS, FB, Amazon etc. and would be setback considerably without access to these value creating services.
The US would have to go 'very far' before Europe could remotely consider a 'ban' on such services.
Though changes in taxation rules etc may happen.
I’d argue that this is an example of the US making the playing field more fair and competitive. TikTok has free reign in both the US and China. US social media companies don’t. If the US banned Airbus from selling planes in the US, do you think France and the EU would just say “well, the free market will win out!” And stick to that principle and not subsequently ban Boeing?
I’m also a bit baffled at the overreaction here. I’m paraphrasing but comments that imply that the US does this wantonly and regularly are quite confusing, as are ones implying that the US is losing it’s free market leadership or something. Factually this is incorrect as it’s well known that other countries have more free and fair markets (Nordics for example), and I think similar comments imply some sort of international agreement that views US actions here as bad, when that’s unlikely to be the case and certainly hasn’t been proven.
> you can expect that GDPR will loose relevance as EU & others will also look into banning foreign internet companies.
I don’t see any credible evidence of this. It would be very bad for the EU as well and I don’t think Europe really has this desire. But you can also look at proposed taxes that don’t specifically target but mostly only affect large US Internet companies to see the protectionism that the EU is engaging in as well.
Sure but it is about how you fix them. Suddenly it is becoming acceptable for governments to control the access to services of their citizens - much like the way China & Russa used to do since ever. These things have far reaching implications beyond business, it's not like putting high tax on imports.
China employs child labor, should USA start using child labour too to compete with China?
If it's not obvious already, I am not fan of China's way of doing things and what I am advocating is that the west should be tackling the issues without becoming China. Yes, I get it, china blocks Facebook but the answer to that should't be blocking TikTok because this means that China got it right and the way forward is being like China.
What is your alternative?
If we have learned anything in the last decade, it is that globalization has just let us externalize the costs of western behavior and focus those costs in Asia (temporarily) until it comes back to bite us.
I.e. short term thinking out of wall st/washington
Now that the USA is no longer pushing for global open markets but champions protectionism, you can be sure that other countries are itching to ban US companies.
If the TikTok ban materialises, you can be sure that all other countries will follow and an era of global US internet companies will come to an end. Maybe giants like FB or Google will be able to set up local versions and keep their markets but there will be no longer companies that were started by few young people that grew to be global products because due to "national security" they will have to set up legal entities in each country and have their business&tech tuned for each markets regulations. Some will require you to keep certain data and give it to the government or else... others will prefer to have their cronies run this and will make sure that you won't succeed in that market.
You thought GDPR is too restrictive? That was actually an attempt to keep global free market alive when fixing the associated national security risks but since USA seems to be choosing the Chinese approach of banning companies instead of regulating them, you can expect that GDPR will loose relevance as EU & others will also look into banning foreign internet companies.
The annoying cookie pop-up might not made internet businesses change their behaviour but it definitely built an awareness that companies are tracking you. Now it will be quite easy to convince the population that for national security reasons FB/Google and others should be banned, and look even the USA is not allowing foreigners why should we? If the USA is banning apps and websites, obviously we can do it too without becoming totalitarian dictatorships like China, Russia, Cuba or DPRK.
I am baffled why the USA choose to trash its global leader position here.