House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell(fortune.com)
fortune.com
House overwhelmingly votes to ban TikTok if its Chinese owner doesn't sell
https://fortune.com/2024/03/13/house-passes-tiktok-ban-senate-path-unclear/
4 comments
> The answer to CCP-style propaganda is not CCP-style oppression. Let us slow down before we blunder down this very steep and slippery slope.
There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. It's like claiming we should have factories using wage labor competing with slave labor out of 'fairness'. It's not a fair playing field when one side of the equation is more than a firm, but rather an entire government. Governments are distinct from firms in that they (1) hold territory and (2) can use coercion and violence legally without any resort. When you have a firm owned / controlled by a government, there is no 'free' market they can engage in with American companies. There is always some imbalance of power without recourse. We've seen this in many instances with the CCP in particular, where Chinese subsidiaries 'go rogue' or IP is stolen.
In order to access the American market, there should be a requirement that firms are not government controlled.
There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. It's like claiming we should have factories using wage labor competing with slave labor out of 'fairness'. It's not a fair playing field when one side of the equation is more than a firm, but rather an entire government. Governments are distinct from firms in that they (1) hold territory and (2) can use coercion and violence legally without any resort. When you have a firm owned / controlled by a government, there is no 'free' market they can engage in with American companies. There is always some imbalance of power without recourse. We've seen this in many instances with the CCP in particular, where Chinese subsidiaries 'go rogue' or IP is stolen.
In order to access the American market, there should be a requirement that firms are not government controlled.
The right answer is media savvy.
We need to be raising our kids to have an appropriate amount of distrust of all media, to understand where it's coming from, who backs it, and what their motivations are. Then they can consume it responsibly. Hell, we probably all need a refresher course in it.
Trying to regulate single platforms, like TikTok, just drives both the audience and the disinformation elsewhere. A better trained audience will be able to rebuff garbage no matter which app happens to host it.
I'm sort of disappointed this is not common-sense stuff, although I could see the risk that a savvier audience is less susceptible to advertising.
> In order to access the American market, there should be a requirement that firms are not government controlled.
You can uninstall the CBC app from my phone over my cold, dead fingers.
We need to be raising our kids to have an appropriate amount of distrust of all media, to understand where it's coming from, who backs it, and what their motivations are. Then they can consume it responsibly. Hell, we probably all need a refresher course in it.
Trying to regulate single platforms, like TikTok, just drives both the audience and the disinformation elsewhere. A better trained audience will be able to rebuff garbage no matter which app happens to host it.
I'm sort of disappointed this is not common-sense stuff, although I could see the risk that a savvier audience is less susceptible to advertising.
> In order to access the American market, there should be a requirement that firms are not government controlled.
You can uninstall the CBC app from my phone over my cold, dead fingers.
> There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists.
This is simply untrue. People wouldn't buy the product if it wasn't the best bang for the buck. Here "buying" is done with quantities of personal data.
Does it help that TikTok costs are subsidized by a gov entity and therefore they can operate with lower revenue? Probably. Are consumers still getting the best deal? Absolutely.
TikTok isn't a mysterious product. People know what they're getting and what they're giving to get it. Stop removing agency from folks and realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market.
This is simply untrue. People wouldn't buy the product if it wasn't the best bang for the buck. Here "buying" is done with quantities of personal data.
Does it help that TikTok costs are subsidized by a gov entity and therefore they can operate with lower revenue? Probably. Are consumers still getting the best deal? Absolutely.
TikTok isn't a mysterious product. People know what they're getting and what they're giving to get it. Stop removing agency from folks and realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market.
Consumers are getting a fine deal. The competing producers (or potential producers) are not. Given that, in the united states, its not just consumers who vote, since all citizens have a right to start and own a business, the American government must represent the interests of both American consumers AND (potential) producers.
> TikTok isn't a mysterious product. People know what they're getting and what they're giving to get it. Stop removing agency from folks and realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market.
In the same way that no American has a 'right' to buy products produced by slave labor, I contend that Americans have no right to buy products produced by government controlled corporations. The free market is for private players on a similar playing field. Unless we let all corporations have militaries and declare sovereignty, I don't believe there's any right to do business with communists.
As a free-market enthusiast and a light libertarian, the non-agression principle applies equally to foreign governments as my own. Since I cannot vote out the communists, I can simply choose to not engage. At some point libertarians and free-marketers need to stop being selective as to which entities their principles get applied to. It's not a good look
> TikTok isn't a mysterious product. People know what they're getting and what they're giving to get it. Stop removing agency from folks and realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market.
In the same way that no American has a 'right' to buy products produced by slave labor, I contend that Americans have no right to buy products produced by government controlled corporations. The free market is for private players on a similar playing field. Unless we let all corporations have militaries and declare sovereignty, I don't believe there's any right to do business with communists.
As a free-market enthusiast and a light libertarian, the non-agression principle applies equally to foreign governments as my own. Since I cannot vote out the communists, I can simply choose to not engage. At some point libertarians and free-marketers need to stop being selective as to which entities their principles get applied to. It's not a good look
Communism isn't the problem here and it'd do you well to build an argument that isn't backed by that at every turn.
It absolutely is. Free markets depend on all forms being legally equal. Government owned firms are not since they have special privileges. In communism, all firms are government owned / controlled at some level. Ergo, no communist firm can engage in a free market.
Free markets are markets in which parties are allowed to voluntarily trade without government interfere.
Communist-supported companies do not violate free market definitions. After all, people still get to decide whether they will trade with them.
Communist-supported companies do not violate free market definitions. After all, people still get to decide whether they will trade with them.
> Since I cannot vote out the communists, I can simply choose to not engage.
You're not simply not engaging. You're also trying to prevent others from engaging, where the justification is that you want to prevent others from engaging because of uneven competitive costs.
The extension of that principle is that we should ban anyone from Iceland because they have nearly free electricity and so it's unfair that they can run data centers cheaper that US based ones. Or any country with welfare that enables them to hire for cheaper, since that is a direct gov subsidy.
We typically focus on consumers from a market competition regulation perspective because that is where price matters. Anyone that can't compete simply can't. If TikTok raises prices, it means someone can move in and undercut them, so there is incentive to keep prices low. We don't want to limit competition because it leads to worse outcomes. Look at the Jones act or the Chicken Tax as examples.
You're not simply not engaging. You're also trying to prevent others from engaging, where the justification is that you want to prevent others from engaging because of uneven competitive costs.
The extension of that principle is that we should ban anyone from Iceland because they have nearly free electricity and so it's unfair that they can run data centers cheaper that US based ones. Or any country with welfare that enables them to hire for cheaper, since that is a direct gov subsidy.
We typically focus on consumers from a market competition regulation perspective because that is where price matters. Anyone that can't compete simply can't. If TikTok raises prices, it means someone can move in and undercut them, so there is incentive to keep prices low. We don't want to limit competition because it leads to worse outcomes. Look at the Jones act or the Chicken Tax as examples.
> The extension of that principle is that we should ban anyone from Iceland because they have nearly free electricity and so it's unfair that they can run data centers cheaper that US based ones. Or any country with welfare that enables them to hire for cheaper, since that is a direct gov subsidy.
Electricity... No because that's a market commodity (presumably). Gov subsidy? Yes we should impose a tariff on that. Same with slave labor or other non market inputs.
Either way, substantially different than government owned.
> You're also trying to prevent others from engaging, where the justification is that you want to prevent others from engaging because of uneven competitive costs.
Well... Yeah. Others cannot engage with the CCP as legal equals in the United States or anywhere else. Allowing them to do so creates unfair, non free markets.
Electricity... No because that's a market commodity (presumably). Gov subsidy? Yes we should impose a tariff on that. Same with slave labor or other non market inputs.
Either way, substantially different than government owned.
> You're also trying to prevent others from engaging, where the justification is that you want to prevent others from engaging because of uneven competitive costs.
Well... Yeah. Others cannot engage with the CCP as legal equals in the United States or anywhere else. Allowing them to do so creates unfair, non free markets.
> TikTok isn't a mysterious product
False. It is mysterious.
Where is TikTok's source? Is TikTok recommendation model open sourced?
> Stop removing agency from folks
Welcome to living in a society with a govt. that has to think of the greater society's welfare in the future.
> realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market.
Are we ignoring how better products failed due to stealing by CCP companies (e.g., Huawei stealing from Nortel Networks and Cisco)?
False. It is mysterious.
Where is TikTok's source? Is TikTok recommendation model open sourced?
> Stop removing agency from folks
Welcome to living in a society with a govt. that has to think of the greater society's welfare in the future.
> realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market.
Are we ignoring how better products failed due to stealing by CCP companies (e.g., Huawei stealing from Nortel Networks and Cisco)?
I'm curious what message investor/startup types take out of this.
I bought some Baidu shares (like $500 worth) many years ago and I never heard the end of it from people saying "don't invest in the PRC, they'll nationalize it and leave you holding the bag."
The US is basically doing that exact thing to ByteDance's investors: Forcing a sale guarantees a fire-sale price and investors taking a haircut.
Why would any foreign business want to make a major play in the US after this? Congress might say they're only doing this to rattle sabres with Evil Communist China, but will they find an excuse if the next hot startup comes from, say, Brazil? The Netherlands? Canada?
I bought some Baidu shares (like $500 worth) many years ago and I never heard the end of it from people saying "don't invest in the PRC, they'll nationalize it and leave you holding the bag."
The US is basically doing that exact thing to ByteDance's investors: Forcing a sale guarantees a fire-sale price and investors taking a haircut.
Why would any foreign business want to make a major play in the US after this? Congress might say they're only doing this to rattle sabres with Evil Communist China, but will they find an excuse if the next hot startup comes from, say, Brazil? The Netherlands? Canada?
The USA does shit like this all the time. It destroyed Bombardier on Boeing's behalf a few years ago.
As a parent who occasionally monitors the trends in genZ social media, I'm super interested to see how this would shape US culture, post-ban. TikTok and shorts are _huge_, if not the predominant driver of memetic trends, business and communication.
Instagram has Reels, and I'd only suspect that many would migrate there? Very interesting time to observe.
Instagram has Reels, and I'd only suspect that many would migrate there? Very interesting time to observe.
Most likely Reels and YT Shorts.
The same thing happened in India in 2020 after their Chinese app ban which included PUBG and Genshin as well.
The same thing happened in India in 2020 after their Chinese app ban which included PUBG and Genshin as well.
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39691808