
Why we are suing the Administration - yunong
https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/tiktok-files-lawsuit
======
badRNG
Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the
interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented.

The jump from banning Huawei from building critical public infrastructure to
banning an app that hasn't even conclusively been proven to behave in any
uniquely dangerous ways seems to be an intense, unjustified escalation of this
conflict. [1]

You may disagree with me on the strict security-related merits of banning
TikTok, and I am willing to concede all of them, however this will, either
way, establish a precedent of an app's coverage by 1st amendment free speech
protections, and of what standards the government needs to do to ban an app,
whether it be a Chinese social media app or an end-to-end encrypted messaging
app. [2]

If the standard is simply to claim that it's "a national security threat"
without requiring any further evidence (besides the fact that it's Chinese)
then that might be cause for concern.

[1] [https://medium.com/@fs0c131y/tiktok-logs-logs-
logs-e93e81626...](https://medium.com/@fs0c131y/tiktok-logs-logs-
logs-e93e8162647a)

[2] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/tiktok-ban-seed-
genuin...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/tiktok-ban-seed-genuine-
security-concern-wrapped-thick-layer-censorship)

~~~
ArchD
Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other
non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese
online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and
information flow? Chinese companies have to obey the CPC's orders that
infringe users' privacy. Whether or not it is right for a country's government
to spy on its citizens, the current arrangement is assymetric.

If TikTok were made in India, then you would have a good point.

~~~
dalbasal
Why does the CPC ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese
online companies?

They want control over media, especially political content. They want to make
sure speech, affiliation and such is under their control. Are _you_ saying the
US should adopt this approach?

Trade fairness is a red herring.

~~~
ArchD
No, the symmetry matters only in the relationship between the two countries,
not in them mirroring each other in their domestic practices.

The patriarch of a neighboring family does not welcome members of your family
into their home, so why should your family welcome them into yours? On the
other hand, that the patriarch practices domestic violence is another matter;
you don't mirror that.

~~~
dalbasal
Those two are inseparable. China's policy towards foreign media is a domestic
policy. Diplomacy and trade relations are subservient to that. They are
worried about foreign influence on chinese political culture. That is what is
being mirrored in the US by the tiktok case.

In any case, the has never been symmetry... or any intention to have symmetry.
Each country has its goals. That's how trade deals always work.

China's primary goals were/are exports and the abovementioned protection
against foreign and/or free media. The US' goals are US investment into china,
an american-like legal framework for protecting these investments and adoption
of US-compatible IP protections. That's what each side wanted. It reflects
values. That's what they got. Both complain they didn't get enough of what
they wanted.

It's not like the US is going to adopt elements of chinese patent law for the
sake of symmetry.

------
drtillberg
The silliness in the statement about being "obligated" to the TikTok
community.... It's contradictory, just like all ToS would be. Compare:

 _Public_ _Relations_ _Statement_ : "Put simply, we have a thriving community
and we are grateful – and _responsible_ – to them."

With: _Terms_ _of_ _Service_ [1] ( hilariously, TikTok provides a read time
estimate on the ToS of "279 - 354 minutes"):

    
    
      We reserve the right to disable your user account at any time ... in our sole discretion ....
    
      We reserve the right, at any time and without prior notice, to remove or disable access to content at our discretion for ... no reason.
    
      You further acknowledge that ... you (i) have no right to receive any income or other consideration from any User Content ... including in any User Content created by you, and (ii) are prohibited from exercising any rights to monetize or obtain consideration from any User Content within the Services or on any third party service ( e.g. , you cannot claim User Content that has been uploaded to a social media platform such as YouTube for monetization).
    
      By posting User Content ... you waive ... any and all rights of privacy, publicity, or any other rights of a similar nature in connection with your User Content.... [Y]ou hereby waive and agree never to assert any and all moral rights ... with respect to any User Content you Post to or through the Services.
    

I'm sure there's more, but the point is, as far as legal _obligation_ goes,
users are the junior partner for sure, and it's pretty silly to claim TikTok
is "responsible" to the community for much of anything, as a result of the ToS
and other behind the scenes manuvering.

[1] [https://www.tiktok.com/legal/terms-of-
use?lang=en](https://www.tiktok.com/legal/terms-of-use?lang=en)

~~~
robjan
In this case they are probably using "obligated" in the context of repaying a
debt of gratitude.

~~~
the_other
I’d just call it spin.

------
bootloop
Why is the US always focusing on individual companies instead of working on
laws to protect them from all companies invading the privacy of their
citizens? Banning one player isn't going to help much in the long run I would
think.

Edit: I am an EU citizen if it matters.

~~~
simion314
They would need to explain how TicTok brainwashes americans to vote(or not
vote) but Facebook and Twitter categorically does not do the same thing. If
"brainwashing" on social media exists then all should be made illegal not only
the a small subset.

~~~
ThomPete
Thats not really why they are worried about TikTok, it comes back to the issue
of the CCP and and that China defacto owns TikTok which means that information
can be harvested. This is G5 controversy all over. The brainwashing part is
just noise. The real concern is real given Chinas history.

~~~
simion314
I mean FB has a lot of information about users, have you seen how you are
tagged in the ads ? Any private person can target any subgroup and we know
that FB transferred this data to different companies in the past, the
probability that some government somewhere that wanted the FB data does not
have it yet (maybe a bit outdated) is Zero.

Let's assume you block all applications that are suspected of relations with
CCP (no proof, no trial) this won't stop CCP just buying this data from shady
american (or foreign) companies so it would be smart to fix the root of the
problem(data collection and brainwashing)

~~~
wolco
When tiktok removes Hong Kong related protests videos this is bigger than the
ccp having a facebook group or buying advertising profiles.

~~~
yorwba
If they took those down, that would certainly be a problem, yes:
[https://www.tiktok.com/tag/%E5%85%89%E5%BE%A9%E9%A6%99%E6%B8...](https://www.tiktok.com/tag/%E5%85%89%E5%BE%A9%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%99%82%E4%BB%A3%E9%9D%A9%E5%91%BD?lang=zh_Hant)

------
euix
Interesting article in Bloomberg just now:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-01/bytedance...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-01/bytedance-
chief-reconsiders-tiktok-options-after-new-china-rules).

The kicker is at the end:

“He thought that by making a promise to follow international standards or
rules he would be able to escape the regulation or the kind of pressure from
the American government,” said Ding. “But I think now he realizes he might
have been wrong and that if he doesn’t want to sell the company, the only one
who can help him is the Chinese government -- which is what he’s tried to
avoid the past few years.”

It's the same with Huawei, if Huawei wasn't a government owned or backed
company before, after the U.S. tried to kneecap it, it sure as hell will
become one if only to survive.

~~~
ryosuke
Exactly. My understanding is that ByteDance has tried to maintain some
distance with the Chinese government in the past, but this pressure from the
US essentially forces it to reverse course.

It's antithetical to the US's purported objective of promoting a more
liberalized market economy in China (though I suppose that was never something
this administration really cared about).

~~~
gruez
>It's antithetical to the US's purported objective of promoting a more
liberalized market economy in China (though I suppose that was never something
this administration really cared about).

You're missing the context behind why that policy was in place. A big part of
that was the hope that China would democratize in the process. Clearly that
has not happened so it makes sense to pull the plug. No point giving out free
concessions to trade partners that aren't willing to reciprocate.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
It was never about giving "free concessions." It was about opening up China to
foreign investment, so that foreign companies could make returns. It's
difficult to overstate just how massively foreign companies profited from
trade liberalization with China.

Foreign companies were able to earn large returns in China because China's
tariffs went from ~40% to ~3%, restrictions on foreign investment were reduced
or eliminated in most sectors, big state-owned enterprises were split up and
forced to operate like regular companies that have to earn a profit, IP courts
were created, along with many other changes large and small.

The sudden cries that China took advantage of the West are just completely out
of touch with reality.

------
square_usual
All else aside,

> As a company we have always focused on transparency, so we want to explain
> why we are taking this step.

is patent bullshit, even more than the usual marketing speak. They sure as
heck weren't transparent about hiding posts from unattractive or LGBTQ people
[1], or when they waited hours before calling police on a suicide which
happened live on the platform to protect their image [2], or even about how
they hid posts during the Hong Kong protests [3]. The last one is especially
rich - they tried to claim it was because users "came to TikTok for joyful
content" that there were very few posts from Hong Kong about the protests.
This (The Administration vs TikTok) is a battle where both sides are awful.

1: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/17/tiktok-
tr...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/17/tiktok-tried-to-
filter-out-videos-from-ugly-poor-or-disabled-users)

2: [https://theintercept.com/2020/02/06/tiktok-suicide-
brazil/](https://theintercept.com/2020/02/06/tiktok-suicide-brazil/)

3:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/15/tiktoks...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/15/tiktoks-
beijing-roots-fuel-censorship-suspicion-it-builds-huge-us-audience/)

~~~
newen
TikTok is fun because it has funny videos and dances and memes. If a company
doesn't want its content to fill up with toxic politics, they shouldn't be
forced to.

~~~
perryizgr8
Sure, they can sell to American owners and continue their app as is.

------
someonehere
Radio Free Asia (unsure of legitimacy of this site) has stated China used
TikTok data out of the Houston consulate (remember it was shut down by the
State Department out of the blue and neighbors were filming the consulate
burning documents in the courtyard) to manipulate the BLM protest narrative:
[https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3876672/posts](https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3876672/posts)

“The purpose was to “weaponize” big data technology. It delivered relevant
materials precisely to those people who were most likely to participate in the
protests, while other people could not even find those videos.”

From the article there’s mention of fake IDs. That made me think of this news
item: [https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/shipments-of-
nearly-20000-f...](https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/shipments-of-
nearly-20000-fake-drivers-licenses-seized-at-chicago-airport)

Something is afoot and TikTok needs to not be here anymore.

~~~
sudosysgen
Radio Free Asia has been founded by the CIA, and is generally considered to be
a propaganda rag. Would not use it as a source, and if you can only find RFA
as a source and not much else it's probably outright false.

~~~
singlow
Wasn't that a different organization that operated in the 50s? The modern RFA
started in the 90s and gets federal funding but is not associated with the
CIA. They probably should have used a new name, but is there any other reason
you think they are a CIA rag?

~~~
sudosysgen
Right, so it went from direct CIA command to command by another independent
unaccountable US State Department agency in order to further the exact same
goal, because of optics. There is no difference between the two. It went from
one three-letter agency to another three-letter agency, and it's goals and
methods did not change.

When US intelligence has credible proof of something and want to be trusted,
they go to reputable media or outright publishes it.

~~~
swordsmith
Not if the "reputable media" are pressured/threatened by CCP

~~~
sudosysgen
Sure. So now the only source we're going to trust is the US State Department.
Which, by the way, has quite the history in threatening journalists too.

Also, many news sources are already banned in China and have nothing to lose.

------
S53Vflnr4n
Zuck s been busy fighting Tiktok with tooth n nail. He knows he lost his prime
users to Tiktok. No youngsters use FB anymore.

But FB can do this in India and its ok ?

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-executive-supported-
in...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-executive-supported-indias-modi-
disparaged-opposition-in-internal-messages-11598809348)

~~~
novaRom
Not just FB. It looks like a real exodus is happening now from WatsApp to
Telegram, at least in EU. Instagram is their last bastion for now.

------
zadkey
"By banning TikTok with no notice or opportunity to be heard (whether before
or after the fact), the executive order violates the due process protections
of the Fifth Amendment."

The 5th amendment rights that they are asserting apply to people.

This brings us back to the question of "Are corporations people?"

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time
of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation."

~~~
ghayes
The 14th Amendment expands the scope of the 5th Amendment by clarifying when
and how Due Process must be applied. The Court has generally expanded the
scope over the last 200 years, and I do not think TikTok will have to
seriously argue whether or not Constitutional due process applies in this
case. The arguments should mostly lie in whether or not Due Process was
applied and likely more on the application of Federal law in the case.

------
swiley
Im no fan of banning an app just because it’s from another country but

> As a company we have always focused on transparency

Isn’t something you can say when the only way to see something is from an
“algorithm” curated feed. Facebook says the same thing and it’s always really
upsetting.

------
fvv
I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china
censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or
violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking
about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be
free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class

this type of free speech should be guaranteed to anyone and reinforced with
the non-violent marginalization of those who struggle to take away fundamental
human rights, the ban of a society under the control of this regime is the
least I expect from a state that wants to enact these rights. talk about what
you want (here you can do it) talk about rights in the west etc ... (here you
can do it) there (in china) you are just on another level, compare them if you
want .. here you can do it .. but try to go there ..

~~~
phkahler
Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the
government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they
dont like.

There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those
are not the first amendment.

Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding
constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it
anywhere.

~~~
dreamcompiler
This. The writers of the constitution understood that if you didn't like doing
business with a company you could just take your business to their competitor.
If you don't like your bridge club or church, pick a different one. But if
your government is infringing your rights, it's very difficult for most people
to pick a different government.

~~~
beefield
> But if your government is infringing your rights, it's very difficult for
> most people to pick a different government.

I am not sure if I am attacking a straw man here, but it sure sounds like you
claim that buying one way flight ticket is very difficult compared to getting
rid of FAAMG in your life?

I understand there are other complications involved in moving abroad that just
the flight ticket, but I still think that the big global corps are much more
difficult to get rid of than my government. Including the fact that they very
much keep communication with my friends at least as much hostage as my
government if I decide to move away.

~~~
selectodude
I haven't bought anything off Amazon in awhile. I'm sure I still use AWS when
I browse the web but I'm not militant in my lack of support. Hopefully they
move somewhere else, but it's fine regardless.

I'd be on the next flight out if there was some sort of undocumented American
community somewhere in Western Europe or something. But that simply doesn't
exist.

~~~
dash2
Last I looked, they were all in Berlin, pushing up the rent and talking about
their startup.

~~~
selectodude
I do love Berlin :/

------
christophilus
It’s hard for me to imagine the US allowing the USSR to distribute apps like
this (or any kind, really) back in the Cold War. This action is not as
unprecedented as some think. It is misguided, though. The US needs a
systematic policy, not a bunch of arbitrary one-offs.

~~~
Igelau
IANAL, but I doubt that imagined alternate histories constitute a legal
precedent.

------
bdefore
Couldn't the EU leverage the TikTok ordeal to make a similar case to force US-
based social networks to divest ownership and restrict data hosting to
locations outside of Five Eyes access? Given the revelations around espionage
towards NATO allies it doesn't sound unreasonable.

~~~
angio
At least someone in the EU is thinking about a digital firewall [0] to keep
European citizens data within the EU.

[0]
[https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/6487...](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648784/IPOL_STU\(2020\)648784_EN.pdf)

------
llboston
If you wanna learn more about how Chinese company are forced to do censorship,
this will be a good read [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-
CN&tl=en&u=http...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-
CN&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.voachinese.com%2Fa%2Finternet-
censorship-20200812%2F5540475.html)

An former employee of Weibo (China's Twitter clone) who recently moved to the
US did a great interview with VOA

------
fl0wRiny
Who cares though honestly. Cry about it TikTok. Honestly ALL social media
should be banned. Citizens don't understand the privacy that is being
exploited while they think that they're benefiting from a "free service."
Besides these companies are mostly fueling a toxic culture that glorifies sin
while they get rich off of the poor. Plus it's the American market and we get
to make the decisions here about other countries even if it's extremely
authoritarian. And honestly china is a despicable marketplace (not to say
fight fire with fire) but gg dude, go to other markets they have been
exploiting our market for as long as society can remember. Go do business
elsewhere. They're already stealing all of our IP and not required barely any
pay to make it. So let's set some boundaries where we can.

~~~
whatshisface
> _Honestly ALL social media should be banned._

The page you're posting that comment on is social media...

~~~
tenebrisalietum
Forums that don't require you to use your real time, don't track your
location, and are text only are not synonymous with the modern sense of social
media.

------
chrisco255
It's really hard to feel bad for a Chinese entity when tens of thousands of
small businesses across the country have had their business effectively
bankrupted on account of arbitrary government action that is no fault of their
own.

~~~
m11a
Keep in mind that it's not just about a Chinese entity. They employ a lot of
people directly, and all those 'influencers' on TikTok also make their
livelihoods from their TikTok work. Not all could easily migrate to other
platforms.

This is akin to banning YouTube. You're not just banning the company. There's
a whole community, of content consumers and creators with jobs, behind it.

~~~
ddorian43
It's a new market, it's ok if it fails quickly.

~~~
m11a
If it fails by natural causes, sure.

If it fails by government policy, that's an awful outcome for tech and the
future. We need to encourage new markets, not end them. Tech is ending old
markets as it is, if we're not encouraging new ones we're going to end up with
increasing unemployment.

------
krisgenre
Why they have not done the same in India? They must be having more users in
India than in US.

------
IanDrake
This isn't about privacy, this is about a cold war with China that has been
going on for a while now.

------
Ericson2314
Honestly, as much as I dislike the CCP, I definitely want TikTok to stay
until/unless there is some real anti-trust or other FAANG weakening happening.

Even if Tik Tok just kills Facebook and becomes the new Facebook, that's fine.
Now the US goverment won't feel conflicted between anti-trust and tech
nationalism, and we can lobby for much better privacy laws.

Anti-trust has been such a joke in the last few decades, and federal
governance so bad in general around all issues of privacy, technology, and
competition, I'll accept the Chinese competitor cudgel because it's the best
we got.

Sigh.

------
qazpot
Maybe American companies should sue China.

------
tmcronn
>Microsoft has been in talks to acquire TikTok — though co-founder Bill Gates
has called the potential deal a “poisoned chalice”

Where there's money to be made, no poison is too poisonous for big companies.

------
BTCOG
If and while China sees fit to ban all American apps, programs, and sites, we
should return that in kind. I support segregating China off our clean network.

------
golergka
TikTok is awful company which clearly panders to Chinese government, deletes
anti-CCP content, and quite probably collects private data and promotes
content in its own political interests.

However.

The whole world sees "The West" in general, and US in particular, as a place,
where The Rule Of Law, and in general, some respect for the Rules, even for
adversaries, is more important than in other places. That's why Russian
oligarchs sue each other in London's courts. That's why millions of the most
educated, the most creative, the most productive people immigrate to US and
other capitalist countries from former Soviet block and not the other way
around. Of course, US is not paradise, and everybody how ugly and criminal can
it be sometimes; but still, compared to what other parts of the world look
like, it's still a City upon a hill. Yes, US is a corrupt, racist country with
a lot of deep internal problems, and yet it is still the best champion for
democratic values we've got on the whole planet. (Some smaller European
countries can have a better record, but they're just not significant enough to
have a real influence).

And despite how awful TikTok is, and how I would applaud their demise, these
executive orders, which directly violate these core ideals of western
civilisation, damage not only US, but these ideals itself in the long run. I'm
still amazed that a private company can sue the government and have a real
hope at winning — if you're American, you may not realise how precious that
possibility even is. And I really hope it does win.

------
exabrial
It's pretty simple really: prove that you've resisted CCP censorship instead
of rolling over. Not hard.

~~~
x86_64Ubuntu
Wait, so your pathway to them not being "censored" (as HN would say) is to
show that they aren't being censored (and by censored you mean moderated) by
CCP? That's ridiculous.

------
nogabebop23
lost me at the second sentence:

>> As a company we have always focused on transparency

maybe this is another parody like the MasterWiki one?

------
Heyso
Not sure this has anything to do with tiktok, but just wanted to say that :

Every compagny that is not paying taxes, is stealing money from all peoples in
the country. They use loopholes in the law to make in legal. But that should
not be acceptable. It pain me to live in a world where most peoples doesn't
care to be robbed constantly.

------
ideals
Some strong Chinese xenophobia in this thread. This place is getting straight
up awful towards Chinese.

Cheerleading a racist president who shouts "China flu" and latching onto this
flimsy executive order because you finally get the warm fuzzy feeling of
fucking over a company started by a Chinese person is straight up fucked.

------
nicosaul
Best case scenario Tiktok is just wasting people’s time.

------
fvv
Chinese administration ban or ostracize large portion of us software , imo us
and eu must do the same 'til minimum information freedom for free people ( no
China firewall,information circulation ban ) is allowed there too

~~~
liuyong
They are not comparable.

Quote form fortune[1]:

Kai-Fu Lee, a leading artificial intelligence expert who heads the tech
investment firm Sinovation Ventures, worked for Google in China between 2005
and 2009. (Until 2009, Google operated a separate, censored version of its
search engine in China.) He said in a Chinese-language statement on Tuesday
that Google's experience in China and TikTok's case in the U.S. are "not
comparable."

When Google decided it didn't want to comply with China's rules, "it decided
to withdraw" from the mainland, Lee said. With TikTok, Lee said, the U.S.
government did not provide information on what the app could do to continue
operating in the U.S. as a Chinese-owned company, nor did the U.S. provide
evidence for its complaints against the app.

[1] [https://fortune.com/2020/08/06/tiktok-ban-trump-executive-
or...](https://fortune.com/2020/08/06/tiktok-ban-trump-executive-order-
microsoft-sale-wechat-tech-china-us-companies-is-tik-tok-getting-banned/)

~~~
darawk
China bans plenty of US apps and services. Facebook, for instance. They are
exactly comparable.

~~~
francesca
If you comply with China's laws you can operate there. These US companies just
don't want to deal with that.

~~~
summerlight
I saw this logic on HN frequently, but it's significantly flawed. It can be
meaningful only if those two nations are completely independent to each other,
which is a contradictory to the premise. Otherwise, there will be fairness
escalations. To avoid such situation, modern global diplomacy and free trade
already have developed a framework to minimize the friction and ensure a
minimal level of fairness.

The problem is that China's legislation and jurisdiction are in a complete
control under a single political entity, CCP and its laws are deliberately
designed to be ambiguous to allow arbitrary interpretation in favor of CCP.
Also, don't forget that CCP's constitution is on top of PRC's constitution.

Obviously, this situation is not acceptable in the the principle of free
trading as CCP is blatantly exploiting this political system to discriminate
foreign companies and effectively violate the principle of national treatment.
In order to join the global free trade system, a long time ago China promised
to change its political and economical practice at least minimally compatible
to other states. I think the previous presidents till Hu Jintao might keep it
in their minds but unfortunately Xi Jinping doesn't seem so.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
China made massive concessions in order to join the WTO. It reduced tariffs
from ~40% to ~3%, removed joint-venture restrictions from most sectors of the
economy, broke up many state-owned enterprises, created a new intellectual
property enforcement system out of nothing, and changed all sorts of laws that
benefited domestic companies.

That's not to say that there are no legitimate complaints that foreign
companies have, but the investment environment for foreign companies improved
massively in China, and foreign companies have made huge returns on their
investments. There's supposed to be a WTO mechanism for dealing with
discrimination against foreign companies, though the Trump administration has
put that mechanism out of action by blocking the appointment of judges to the
WTO's appellate body.

~~~
learc83
> removed joint-venture restrictions from most sectors of the economy,

This is misleading. On paper sure, but not in reality. The majority of large
companies in China will in fact be forced to participate in a joint venture.
And sure there is no "law" on the books requiring forced technology transfer,
but foreign companies are forced to do it.

China is a not a country that follows the rule of law. Period. The law is
whatever the CCP says it is today. There can be no rule of law without an
independent judiciary, and the WTO mechanism's you speak of are completely
unenforceable.

>broke up many state-owned enterprises

Also misleading. They were technically "broken" up. But they still have have
CCP liaison committees, and CCP members running them. The government still
assists them with corporate espionage, and provides them with enormous grants
and loans. Large companies in China are still state owned enterprises in all
but name.

> but the investment environment for foreign companies improved massively in
> China

It did improve for a few years, but the current administration has managed to
reverse nearly all those improvements.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
> The majority of large companies in China will in fact be forced to
> participate in a joint venture.

That's just not true any more. Companies sometimes choose to enter joint
ventures, but in most industries, they're not forced to. Many large foreign
companies operate without JV partners in China.

> There can be no rule of law without an independent judiciary, and the WTO
> mechanism's you speak of are completely unenforceable.

WTO rulings have led to concrete changes in Chinese policy, and beyond that,
China has undergone very fundamental changes to its economic structure and
regulation as a condition of WTO membership. In terms of things like IP
enforcement, there is something approaching rule of law in China. Western
companies can enforce their IP rights through the Chinese judiciary, and they
have a very good success rate.

> They were technically "broken" up. But they still have have CCP liaison
> committees

Having a "liaison committee" is very different from being a giant monopoly
that rules the market and doesn't have to fear competition. Many large state-
owned enterprises were broken up, forced to operate on a profit-basis for the
first time, and forced to compete with one another and private enterprises.
Private enterprises now make up a large share of the Chinese economy.

> It did improve for a few years, but the current administration has managed
> to reverse nearly all those improvements.

Do you mean Xi Jinping? Restrictions on foreign companies have continued to be
loosened (e.g., the recent loosening of JV restrictions in the auto industry,
which made Tesla's Shanghai factory possible).

------
wombatmobile
President Trump's executive order states these reasons for banning TikTok:

"TikTok automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users,
including Internet and other network activity information such as location
data and browsing and search histories. This data collection threatens to
allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and
proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of
Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for
blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.

"TikTok also reportedly censors content that the Chinese Communist Party deems
politically sensitive, such as content concerning protests in Hong Kong and
China’s treatment of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities. This mobile
application may also be used for disinformation campaigns that benefit the
Chinese Communist Party, such as when TikTok videos spread debunked conspiracy
theories about the origins of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus."

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-
or...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-
addressing-threat-posed-tiktok/)

~~~
nxc18
The Trump administration itself spread debunked conspiracies about the Novel
Coronavirus...

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/03/mike-pompeo-
do...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/03/mike-pompeo-donald-trump-
coronavirus-chinese-laboratory)

------
knodi
The Idiot-Trump effect.

------
protez
All Chinese companies are subsidiaries of Chinese communists party. There is
no single exception. TikTok and Huawei have been exploiting all of its
information and power to influence in the favor of China Communist Party and
it's against not just us, but all the free states and people in proper
nations.

~~~
swiley
Isn’t pine64 a Chinese company? I haven’t seen them do anything pro ccp.

~~~
m11a
I think it depends on the size of the company. Some maintain a further
distance from the party successfully, some even manage to criticise it, but I
don't think you get to ByteDance levels of growth without close connection to
the party. Consider that ByteDance has its own CCP Party Secretary.

Of course, this doesn't mean you're exploiting US data at the whim of the
party, which is what Trump's actions imply the company is doing. I think you
can successfully maintain a separate US structure from their Chinese one, and
I don't think China really cares much for what US people do in their own
country.

------
Canada
This is retaliation for China's unfair practices. It's not about propaganda,
what videos are allowed or disallowed, or who might see which videos you
watch. It's about the fact that valuable US tech companies aren't allowed to
compete in China. If they were the trade deficit wouldn't nearly as bad. Now
the Trump administration is hitting back. This is plainly and simply: Screw
you, we're going to take something successful of yours.

The tactics are distasteful: Filing outrageous criminal changes against Meng
Wanzhou and the campaign to ban Huawei products as well as this frankly
gangster-like hostile takeover of Bytedance's business.

I don't feel sorry for Huawei. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Bytedance
on the other hand is only guilty of making a fun product, but in the game
being played here fairness to the pawns isn't a priority.

~~~
modo_mario
I suspect there's also more lobbying from more isolated (as in not general
American) interest involved than people think. I initially thought it would
come from the potential buyers like Microsoft but actually articles have
mentioned Zuckerberg was throwing his weight behind it before it all took off.

~~~
Canada
Sure, could be. Maybe it was even Zuckerberg's idea, who knows. Regardless,
the strategy is to pressure the CCP to allow better China market access by
imposing restrictions on access by Chinese companies. And just like the CCP,
this administration is picking targets strategically and using arbitrary and
ambiguous reasoning:

Did the CCP really ban Facebook because of censorship or was it actually a
protectionist move? Is the Trump administration threatening TikTok for the
reasons it says or is it really about punishing China for its trade policy?

------
cryptica
Nobody gives a crap about TikTok or its executives. If Trump puts them all in
jail for life without a trial. I don't care about TikTok and their cronies. If
Trump decided to seize all billionaires' money and assets and distribute it
equally to everyone, I would see that as a plus.

In this nonsensical economy, the pathetic moral arguments made by this article
are word vomit. Not relevant to anyone's life. Nobody cares. They should be
locked up for abusing our collective brains with this irrelevant crap.

------
chojeen
It's hard to know how to feel about this complex situation. On one hand:

\- The Chinese government clearly has its tendrils in TikTok and uses it to
push its oppressive censorship policies around the world

\- The security implications of giving China a backdoor into a large
percentage of American phones is too concerning to ignore

On the other hand:

\- Explicitly targeting specific companies feels wrong. If security and
censorship are real concerns here, Congress should be passing laws that apply
to all companies, not just TikTok

\- Even though there are sound reasons to restrict TikTok, this is still a
transparently protectionist policy by the Trump admin and fits right into his
nationalistic, totalitarian, xenophobic playbook. A broken clock is still
right twice a day, I suppose

\- Requiring a sale to an American company is the mirror image of China's
forced technology transfers for foreign companies. Two wrongs don't make a
right

I think the best scenario is for Congress to preempt Trump with laws that
protect American security and free speech interests without executive action.
That's easier said than done, though.

------
yholio
I believe the USA is squarely within its rights to reciprocate the ban that
american companies such as Google and Facebook face in China. So the move is
justified on commercial grounds alone.

That being said, Trump's claims that TikTok is a national security threat are
more than dubious. Sure, the operation of any foreign company can be
interpreted as a security threat to any nation. Who's to say that the latest
imported batch of Ramen aren't part of a Japanese plot for a new Pearl Harbor
involving explosive Ramen. But the only logical conclusion to this way of
thinking is to completely isolate a country from the outside world.

------
temp1892232323
In a world full of shady companies, I would much rather bacl companies like FB
than companies like TikTok backed by the Chinese government.

Even with all the flaws that the US government and various US companies have,
they're so much better in terms of transparency and regulation than their
chinese counterparts.

~~~
sudosysgen
Idk, the lead up to the Iraq War was the polar opposite of transparency and
now one million people are dead.

------
nelaboras
I would love for tiktok (and all similar social media) to disappear and I
agree that China is a threat to the rest of the world (although the US is too
:-) ) but tiktok do have a point that this has been done by the trump admin
like they do things in a banana republic: I don't like things therefore I, the
king.. uh president, decide that this has to go.

You might like it here as its a company you don't like but what if the same is
done next for Twitter, Telegram, or maybe just foreign companies like e.g.
Siemens, Tata, ...

Trump is hollowing out the rule of law and pretends he can do whatever he
feels like. It's a mistake to cheer for that even if you agree with some of
those decisions.

All I'm reminded of is this famous quote of a German priest ultimately
executed by the Nazis:

> First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-Because I was
> not a socialist.

> Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-Because I
> was not a trade unionist.

> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a
> Jew.

> Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

------
ausjke
Tiktok, in your hiring practice, you stated CCP members first and preferred,
you have CCP organization in your company and they're very active
daily(meeting, discussing how to serve better to CCP and obey CCP's
leadership,etc), in fact your CEO etc must follow the CCP leaders in your
organization, you're nothing but a CCP puppet. You're further evil enough to
leverage the West free world to cover the true you.

this is the same logic as many CCP officers in the news section, they block
twitter/facebook/etc inside mainland China, but themselves have active
twitter/facebook/etc accounts to push CCP's propaganda. they become so good at
leveraging the free world's system to cover their own evil actions. For god
sake the west is waking up.

I did business there and I know you all well.

