
US to ban transactions with ByteDance and WeChat in 45 days - baylearn
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/US-China-tensions/Trump-to-ban-transactions-with-ByteDance-and-Tencent-in-45-days
======
tannhaeuser
I don't get it. It's US companies standing to loose their stronghold (near
monopoly) on social, advertisement, and other forms of monetizing the web if
the US creates a precedent for "national security" in this way, as in "we're
welcoming social networks and free speech as long as it benefits the US and
can be searched without warrant." Quite predictably, governments all over the
world will be pressurized to question why they should give US companies (bred
by teethless US antitrust) a free pass to destroy their publishing industry.
Publishers themselves will put this onto the agenda in their own best
interest. The French are already on the fence to create new digital tax
legislation after EU/US negotiation have been aborted by the US side. Maybe
hurting Google, Facebook, Twitter & co is seen as desired collateral damage?

~~~
hintymad
Isn't this just reciprocity? China banned a long list of media companies: FB,
Google, YouTube, Twitter, Netflix, and every traditional media. Now the US is
banning two apps made in China.

~~~
yorwba
It's only reciprocity if you divide the world into two tribes, the "China
tribe" and the "US tribe". Someone from the "China tribe" did something bad to
the "US tribe", so now we're going to grab a random member of the "China
tribe" and punish them for it, even if they're not the one responsible. I used
to think the Western world had abandoned that kind of collective punishment,
but apparently not.

It ceases to be reciprocal if you distinguish groups at an only slightly
higher resolution: Chinese businesses like TikTok and WeChat and American
businesses like Google and Facebook in addition to the Chinese and American
governments. The Chinese government demanded that all businesses censor
content, but Google and Facebook had most of their users outside China, so
they could choose not to comply and still survive. Whereas TikTok and WeChat
didn't have that luxury and censor their Chinese users (TikTok by offering
Douyin as a separate product and making TikTok unavailable in China, WeChat by
censoring messages in conversations with at least one Chinese participant). So
far, both Chinese and American businesses were bullied by the Chinese
government. Now the US government decided to "reciprocate" and ... decides to
bully businesses as well, but only Chinese ones. Great justice.

If TikTok or WeChat have done anything wrong they deserve to be punished for,
then sue them, or, if it's not illegal, make a new law that requires them to
stop doing whatever it is. That law should then also apply to Google and
Facebook, just in case they might be tempted to try the same thing.

But having the president order arbitrary punishment without proof of guilt
(what happened to presumption of innocence?) looks like a dictatorship to me.
Maybe I'm just biased by living in a parliamentary democracy where the voting
system aims for proportional representation.

~~~
api
> But having the president order arbitrary punishment without proof of guilt
> (what happened to presumption of innocence?) looks like a dictatorship to
> me.

It is. There's a faction in the US that believes the US has to have a
dictatorship to compete with China.

We've been here before. The USSR looked like an unstoppable juggernaut until
the late 1960s / early 1970s. Like China they started from a state of relative
backwardness and rapidly industrialized and modernized. The pace seemed
incredible until they ran out of stuff to copy.

Totalitarian systems excel at execution, but they are not creative. A
vertically integrated totalitarian state will always beat a liberal democracy
at "see that? do a whole lot of that!" type challenges. Totalitarianism fails
utterly when the leaders are incompetent or deluded, but when the leadership
has at least basic competence they can appear formidable... as long as there
is a "that" to "do a lot of." When totalitarianism runs out of clear obvious
paths forward, it flounders.

Totalitarian systems find it very hard to innovate because innovation is
disobedience. It goes against entrenched bureaucratic and monetary interests
and sometimes even laws. The latter is why states with a minimalist doctrine
of law (some version of "that which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted")
tend to do better at innovation.

For a real world example of above: look at how ISPs which are state backed
monopolies use the law to push against competitors be they local or municipal
broadband or Starlink. In a totalitarian state, those sorts of entrenched
interests almost always win. Once something becomes entrenched in the power
structure it is immovable and competing with it becomes effectively illegal.

During the Cold War there were always factions in the USA and Western Europe
who argued that we must become more like the USSR. The right pushed for more
militarization and executive power, while the left pushed for more central
management and central planning. They were really pushing for "right" and
"left" variants of the same thing: a vertically integrated totalitarian system
like the Soviet state.

The same thing is happening now. I think a major reason many at the top of the
financial and intelligence world pushed (sometimes covertly) for Trump is as
an answer to Xi Jinpeng. There is always a temptation in any conflict or
tension to emulate the adversary. It won't work. The real answer is to
encourage and protect our ability to innovate while waiting for China to run
out of things to copy.

That being said, I am all for cutting China off from easy access to inside
knowledge and training. We shouldn't make it easy for the CCP to copy
everything. As such I am not opposed to _disengagement_. We should move
production to places like India, Africa, Indonesia, etc. so as not to readily
share industrial and technological expertise.

Edit: I mean no racism here. The _Chinese_ can innovate just fine. _China_
under Xinpeng finds it hard to do anything but copy, because it's a
dictatorship.

~~~
sfifs
> The real answer is to encourage and protect our ability to innovate while
> waiting for China to run out of things to copy.

When did you last visit China? That train has long left the station :-)

Advanced materials research, Aerospace and Chip Fabs are pretty much the only
areas where technological areas where I currently see US having a lead

~~~
api
Those are innovative fields. The US has a clear lead in aerospace and is among
the leaders in materials. We've lost our lead in chips not to China but to
Taiwan, a comparatively more liberal Asian country. The gap is not huge (yet)
so it's possible that the US will regain its fab lead... if we want it. I
think it's more likely in the short term that the US will make deals to get
TSMC to build high-end fabs here for strategic reasons.

I'm sure China will manage to copy a Boeing 737 pretty soon, which is 1960s
technology. Meanwhile we are doing:

[https://boomsupersonic.com](https://boomsupersonic.com)

[https://www.spacex.com](https://www.spacex.com)

... and who-knows-what at places like Area 51. :)

Last I checked China's most advanced fabs were doing 28nm, but that was in
2019. By now they've probably started to get EUV working as they feverishly
race to copy TSMC. I would not be surprised if Chinese fabs are literal exact
copies of prior generation TSMC and Intel fabs, since it takes time to steal
inside information.

~~~
rumanator
> I'm sure China will manage to copy a Boeing 737 pretty soon, which is 1960s
> technology. Meanwhile we are doing:

Well, good enough is good enough. Boeing 737 is currently the most popular
plane, and if China's regime manages to steal enough tech to be able build an
equivalent product, even if it steals only 60s technology, then China's regime
will be in a position to outcompete Boeing based on metrics that matter such
as cost or soft power.

It really doesn't matter who has the cutting-edge after a point of diminishing
returns. When that point is reached, good old economics start to become the
leading criteria.

~~~
whatshisface
With passenger planes, the cutting edge _is_ in economy.

------
supernova87a
Regardless of how I feel about this particular company or transaction, to me
this is a bad overreach of presidential power. I guess it's merely a
reflection of the incompetence/inaction of Congress to study the matter and do
something about it, as is their responsibility.

Why do I say so?

1\. The justification for this is that it's a "national emergency with respect
to the information and communications technology and services _supply chain_
". Supply chain? Are you kidding me? The permissions given to the executive to
declare emergencies for critical goods and services such as related to war
time -- these extend to a voluntary communications app? Strains belief, and
however you feel, this is not a good precedent to allow.

2\. CCP is censoring / monitoring / scraping users' data, so this is a
national emergency.... but not for 45 days and then also ok if we can buy the
company on our terms.

This is yet another thing I guess time to throw up your hands and say, this is
how we live now. One throw-it-against-the-wall proclamation after another.

Even if you're somewhat ok with it, are you really ok with this principle
being applied, when someday it may not go how you want, for something you care
about?

~~~
rapsey
Justifications are meaningless. The US wants to curtail Chinese influence and
power, so it finds some mumbo-jumbo to justify it.

~~~
chillacy
This plays right into China's narrative. Now the arrest of Meng Wanzhou
(Huawei CTO) starts to look a bit less principled and a bit more like a piece
of realpolitik.

I think it's definitely justified in the sense that it's understandable to
strike back, but it's hard to take a moral high ground now.

~~~
mlindner
But only China believes China's narrative... Just ask any of China's
neighbors. Philippines is reversing course of late even though they were
trying to get closer to China, for example.

~~~
logicchains
I'm in Singapore and most of my colleagues here view the US as the bad guy in
all this.

------
paxys
None of these Chinese companies would have grown to what they are today
without intense government-enforced protectionism at home, and until China
agrees to compete on a fair playing field I'm perfectly fine with them all
being banned outside of their firewall.

Would China ever agree to let Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat,
WhatsApp, Messenger etc. or any new startup operate freely and make money
there? It should never have had this one-way economic benefit to begin with.

~~~
bleepblorp
It's pretty much impossible for lower-income countries to develop economically
without protecting their emerging businesses from being slaughtered by
established foreign competition.

The priority of the Chinese government is the benefit of its citizens (leaving
aside that the CCP doesn't consider ethnic minorities in China to be full
citizens, as this is a separate issue) and its domestic economy, not the
benefit of the American tech sector's senior executives and shareholders.

It's not reasonable to expect, much less demand, that the Chinese turn their
tech economy over to silicon valley by allowing unrestricted US entry. It's
not in their economic interests, nor is it in their security interests, and no
amount of US bullying will change this.

China is not Europe; it's not going to hand over the keys to its economic
future to the United States just because the US asks for them.

~~~
zwaps
But does this exact argument not also justify the US and Europe to pursue
their own interests?

Isn’t that what Trump thinks he is doing?

I mean, there is plenty of countries around Europe that are sort of doing
worse than China, but are still strongarmed by these Chinese.

Maybe the EU should also get in on this, not allowing any Chinese firms onside
our borders. After all, our companies are even more fragile.

A call for global protectionism, in other words.

~~~
cblconfederate
The EU protects all sorts of industries, glaringly agriculture with CAP. I can
see a case why we should have regulated social media, search and shopping
platforms (which are highly monopolistic) a decade ago. The EU did not do any
of that, and it's left with virtually zero digital footprint. Considering the
importance of the digital economy for growth, it's quite logical to regulate
itself to the the creation of a local market.

~~~
fendy3002
Half joke question, if EU managed to deliver their own social media restricted
in EU, what will be the main language?

~~~
cblconfederate
Klingon

------
thewarrior
Some people here are wondering about the implications of this. What this means
IMO is that all Chinese investments in SV need to be liquidated at fire sale
prices in the next 45 days. Regardless of how people here feel about China
this is a huge escalation. The US is inflicting huge losses on Chinese
companies for no clear violation of US laws on their part. The pandoras box is
now open.

Do countries get to do this to each other whenever they feel like it now ? Can
China force Tesla to sell its Chinese operations because Teslas data gathering
poses a national security risk ? China has some pretty serious means available
to it for escalation. China can ban Boeing from China forcing the US taxpayer
to incur serious losses in keeping the company afloat.

The whole thing is pretty stupid overall. Most people don't realize that
during the 2008 crisis it was Chinas 500 billion dollar stimulus that kick
started demand and pulled the world out of a depression. China and the US are
interdependent and hold up the global system upon which global growth depends.
If China slows down as a result of all this that reduces global growth.
Pushing China to the wall can make them take extreme steps like undercut the
entire dollar based financial order leading to mass instability. The US might
come out victorious anyway but its not worth the risks. Not to mention a war
which if it breaks out could lead to WW3.

Previous attempts to contain China were much more tactful with things like the
TPP and the Iran deal. Right now the world is hurtling towards the abyss and
most people here don't even realise it.

A meta point I'd like to add is that currently 10 % of the earths population
in the "Westosphere" controls 60 % of the worlds wealth. This is untenable in
the long term and all this flailing about will not stop a reversion to a more
balanced world. Its better that this happen gracefully than in a violent
fashion.

~~~
rtx
What are your views on IP theft by some companies there. Should that be
considered first strike by China.

~~~
thewarrior
China says if you want to set up a factory in China you need to transfer IP.
They aren't forcing western companies to invest. Most companies invested
voluntarily. And this was seen as mostly OK when the rivalry wasn't as heated.

~~~
karterk
It was tolerated in the hope that over time China would open up. But that did
not happen. When facts change, time to change your strategy.

~~~
peacefulhat
What does this "open up" actually mean? A bunch of American companies have set
up shop in China, which was not possible 50 years ago. Now it's common for
huge entertainment properties like blockbuster movies and the NBA to get a
massive share of revenue from China. Video game consoles are now legal. And of
course, China is now essential in the production of most American products.

~~~
keiferski
Open up means become a modern democratic state with respect for human rights,
or at the very least, be on the road to one. The opposite has happened and the
pundits from the 90s look pretty silly right about now.

~~~
AsyncAwait
> democratic state with respect for human rights

Iran tried that in the 50s. Latin America tried that in the 70s.

Got overthrown by CIA every time.

Clearly that's not what it means.

~~~
keiferski
The irony of these trite whataboutist responses is that China would be in such
a better position as global leader if it were open or democratic.
Unfortunately for the Chinese people, the Party is more interested in
maintaining personal power than charting a good path for humanity.

~~~
AsyncAwait
> China would be in such a better position as global leader if it were open or
> democratic.

Certainly. And the CCP hinders that. But the point of my above comment is to
illustrate that it's an open question whether China would be 'allowed' to be
open and democratic.

I don't believe the West is actually concerned about CCP's human rights
violations. They're simply concerned about China's rise as an economic and
military power, we would not support the Saudi regime if human rights was a
concern.

One of the major reasons the CCP got a foothold in China was because there was
a sense that for over a century China was subservient to Western powers.

The CCP was fine as far as the west was concerned as long as it was primarily
a dumb factory for us. But now they have ambitions to go beyond that.

I think that's the crux of the animosity towards China today, not human rights
violations, as gross as they are.

I could imagine China being somewhat of an EU and democratic and as long as
they buy enough western products, be left alone. But if they actually wanted a
truly independent foreign policy for example, that would not fly. See the Iran
Deal for how dependent EU foreign policy is on the U.S. one.

P.S. That does not mean the CCP is good. It's not. But pretending that western
leaders actually care about its human rights abuses is silly.

~~~
keiferski
I think this viewpoint is pretty one-dimensional and oversimplifies the
complexity of geopolitics. The US is like any other country in that faces a
constant struggle between its idealistic values and the realities of the
world. To say that “the West doesn’t care about the human rights violations”
is absurd, as if you could paint nearly a billion people (Europe plus US) with
a single brush. The idea that by supporting one repressive state you forfeit
your ability to critique other repressive states is also absurd. The world
isn’t that simple.

To give you an example: in retrospect, keeping Saddam in power and not
invading Iraq is considered a fairly reasonable opinion; i.e. even though we
got rid of a dictator, the consequences were arguably worse.

The reality is that the West tends to not get involved politically if the
state in question is insular enough to not affect other countries. This isn’t
because they condone abuses in these countries, but because a long history of
failed colonialism and wars has rendered the West extremely hesitant to get
involved in any sort of ‘just’ war that isn’t provoked by the state in
question (see Iraq and Kuwait for example.)

The contemporary populist rise of American hostility to China is also linked
directly to offshoring jobs from the Rust Belt, so again, there are clearly
groups of people who have issues with China that aren’t merely “crush the
rising competitor.”

In any case I don’t disagree that the West has sunk democratic movements which
were against its interests, but that to say all such attempts will be shut
down is overly-simplistic.

~~~
AsyncAwait
> To say that “the West doesn’t care about the human rights violations” is
> absurd, as if you could paint nearly a billion people (Europe plus US) with
> a single brush.

It should be pretty clear from the context that I am talking about western
governments, not people.

Also, as an European, it doesn't look to me like we have much in terms of
independent foreign policy.

> The idea that by supporting one repressive state you forfeit your ability to
> critique other repressive states is also absurd.

One? Please. We support plenty of other dictators all across the world. Or is
Egypt's Sisi not a dictator? What about the UAE, Qatar etc.?

What about human rights violations by democratic countries? We don't seem to
care much about illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

> in retrospect, keeping Saddam in power and not invading Iraq is considered a
> fairly reasonable opinion; i.e. even though we got rid of a dictator, the
> consequences were arguably worse

The assumption that the goal at the start was to get rid of a dictator because
he was one is fairly well established to not be true. Basically a bunch of
neocons who were bitter we didn't dispose Saddam in the FGW wanted to settle
scores.

> The reality is that the West tends to not get involved politically if the
> state in question is insular enough to not affect other countries.

Really, what about the likes of Venezuela/Nicaragua?

> I don’t disagree that the West has sunk democratic movements which were
> against its interests, but that to say all such attempts will be shut down
> is overly-simplistic.

I hope you're right.

------
danboarder
This is sad, we in the US are losing the little high ground we had and no
longer lead by example to bring the world closer together by encouraging free
markets and free people. I'm against this protectionist nationalism, it only
leads to future conflict.

~~~
karterk
US is merely reciprocating the policies of CCP: let them allow US companies to
compete fairly in China as well.

~~~
alexmingoia
Yes, by mirroring China’s authoritarianism and restricting the freedom of
Americans. I’m living overseas and now my government is telling me I can’t use
WeChat? Telling me who I can and cannot trade with, etc.

Restrictions on trade with China are attacks on our freedom.

~~~
ac29
How do you feel about restrictions on trade with North Korea, Syria, or Iran?

~~~
alexmingoia
The same, especially with regards to communications and consumer goods. We’re
talking about a chat and payments app...

It’s not an actual national security issue like selling China nukes or
something.

~~~
ss3000
Private chats can contain sensitive material that could be used to
extort/blackmail government officials and/or business leaders, and in-app
payments can be used for tax evasion, money laundering and bypassing
sanctions. That in combination with the fact that TenCent or any large Chinese
corporation is essentially an extension of the government means that WeChat
can very plausibly become a threat to national security if it gains widespread
adoption.

While I agree with your stance that this is infringing on personal freedoms of
American citizens, and I too wish our leaders wouldn't always so eagerly
infringe on personal freedoms in the name of national security, the national
security claim itself does have merit.

~~~
alexmingoia
The military and government officials can avoid use of the apps, without
banning them for Americans. As they have before WeChat, and before the
Internet.

I think the notion that WeChat is a threat to national security is honestly
ridiculous. National security is a legal excuse to do things Trump otherwise
wouldn’t be able to do in his pursuit of a trade war.

~~~
ss3000
There's no way to predict in advance who's going to become a government
official. When they do, and if they used WeChat before then, the damage is
done. Material on those close to the officials can also be used against them
in similar manner.

Again, not condoning the restriction of personal freedoms, but the national
security angle is not totally without merit.

------
Shank
According to Sam Dean (LA Times): "Video game companies owned by Tencent will
NOT be affected by this executive order! White House official confirmed to the
LA Times that the EO only blocks transactions related to WeChat." [0]

So that clears up at least a little of the ambiguity.

[0]:
[https://twitter.com/SamAugustDean/status/1291576813685108736](https://twitter.com/SamAugustDean/status/1291576813685108736)

~~~
supergirl
not yet, but this just shows how unpredictable US is. that will surely have an
effect on many businesses.

------
gzu
So does this ban transactions with _all_ of Tencent or just those in relation
to WeChat? [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-
or...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-
addressing-threat-posed-wechat/)

    
    
      Section 1.  (a)  The following actions shall be prohibited beginning 45 days after the date of this order, to the extent permitted under applicable law: any transaction that is related to WeChat by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with Tencent Holdings Ltd. (a.k.a. Téngxùn Kònggǔ Yǒuxiàn Gōngsī), Shenzhen, China, or any subsidiary of that entity, as identified by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) under section 1(c) of this order.

~~~
cjbprime
And what's a "transaction"?

~~~
bleepblorp
Payment.

~~~
bigpumpkin
Time for Tencent cryptos

------
voisin
Is there any precedent for a president to do such a thing? I am completely
astonished and dumbstruck that everyone is ok with this.

~~~
TearsInTheRain
The government frequently bans foreign products that have national security
implications.

~~~
badRNG
The ban of an app like TikTok is absolutely unprecedented and is very
atypical. This isn't par-for-the-course behavior by the US government, and the
outcome of this ban will set a precedent for other apps the US bans on
"national security" grounds.

~~~
blisseyGo
The most recent example was Grindr which was first sold to Chinese company and
the government had to force them to sell it back because the app contained
location info of potentially sensitive military personnel.

------
throwaway64054
The (US-HQ'd) company I work for has a small but significant office in China.
We are not a household name, even within tech, so I doubt we'd be a target of
any retaliation by China.

However, my worry is this: Whilst we have a lot of really good people in
China, we don't do any business in China (and there's no realistic prospect of
us doing so). So at this point operating in China seems like a huge exposure
to risk for relatively little reward in the long term.

But I don't see an alternative for us. Pull out of China and business
continuity would take a huge hit; stay in China and accept the risks &
uncertainty.

Basically, I'm torn about the whole situation.

~~~
balola
Your Chinese employees will be fine, but foreign personel coming in should
indeed be very careful not to pique the party's attention as it will actively
be seeking pawns.

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
I am going to ignore value judgment over whether it is fair, or whether it
even makes sense and am going to jump straight to enforcement framework and EO
interpretation.

EO appears to single out two entities WeChat ( Tencent subsidiary ) and TikTok
( ByteDance subsidiary ). EO appears to indicate that the restrictions will be
governed by sanctions framework.

Tencent owns a fair amount of gaming outfits so based on ownership, for
example, Grinding Gears could be affected since Tencent owns 80% stake there.
Gears seems to interpret the order in an optimistic way leaning heavily on
phrase 'any transaction that is related to WeChat', but ignores 'with Tencent
Holdings Ltd.' and how it is likely going to be interpreted by the banking. In
short, Tencent interpretation right now is 'it applies only if it only blocks
transactions related to WeChat.'

I personally have less generous read, but if a lawyer could actually weigh in,
that would work:P

Original text:

Section 1. (a) The following actions shall be prohibited beginning 45 days
after the date of this order, to the extent permitted under applicable law:
any transaction that is related to WeChat by any person, or with respect to
any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with Tencent
Holdings Ltd. (a.k.a. Téngxùn Kònggǔ Yǒuxiàn Gōngsī), Shenzhen, China, or any
subsidiary of that entity, as identified by the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) under section 1(c) of this order.[1]

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

Diclaimer:

I am not a lawyer yo. Don't be an idiot.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
This joke was good:

> In addition, the application captures the personal and proprietary
> information of Chinese nationals visiting the United States, thereby
> allowing the Chinese Communist Party a mechanism for keeping tabs on Chinese
> citizens who may be enjoying the benefits of a free society for the first
> time in their lives. //

Because only a fascissistic dictatorial government would be shooting on it's
own citizens, eh.

Who is using TikTok for something that's got any business or political
sensitivity?

I'm surprised Trump doesn't just admit 'China is beating us on internet
platforms, we're not going to let them win financially'. He could present it
as 'leveling the playing field'. That sort of overtly authoritarian
dictatorial xenophobic fascism seems to be lapped up by the USA public at the
moment?

Or does anyone want to defend that some video of me dancing to music is
somehow critical to keep private??

I can see there's a side effect of the USA administration not wanting any apps
they don't have a backdoor to being used in USA.

They don't say which companies will be subject to the order, really open and
free (presumably to allow maximum market manipulation [fluctuation on the
speculated actions, then controlled movement according to which companies the
order covers] and a month and a half to get relevant bribes).

Tl;dr depends if Grinding Gears pays Trump enough campaign funding I'd guess.

------
cwhiz
The entire western world should treat China exactly the same way China treats
them.

Western companies have a difficult time operating in China, but Chinese
companies have zero problems operating in western countries. It’s completely
unfair and if we follow this to conclusion, the future will be one of only
Chinese international corporations.

Would WeChat or TikTok even exist if the Chinese market were open to existing
western chat and social media software?? Unlikely.

If China wants their companies to be able to access western markets then they
must allow western companies to access their markets.

Quite frankly, the entire western world should be banding together to oppose
this nonsense from China. We should outright ban any goods or technology that
originates in China until China changes its behavior and opens its economy.

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
Why "the entire western world"? As an European, why should we align with the
US in this?

The EU doesn't have any tech giant because, contrary to China, we have
received US tech giants with open arms. So our economies bleed money and lose
jobs to the likes of Amazon, because hey, "the free market". What do we stand
to gain by siding with US companies in this US companies vs. China companies
wars?

Perhaps it would be better for us to just imitate China, start being
protectionistic and banning foreign tech companies so we can grow our own and
prosper. It works. In the US you're pretty much telling us that it works - so
well that you are doing the same.

Now that the US has shown it can ban foreign tech companies if it's in their
own interest, and all the moralizing talk about the free market has been
exposed as the self-serving propaganda it has always been, what reason do be
exactly have to keep playing this game where we are the biggest losers?

~~~
youeseh
\- Does the US prevent European tech companies from doing business in America?

\- Does the US prevent European people from finding work, moving to, and
purchasing property in America?

~~~
smnrchrds
Right now, it doesn't. But I don't think it is because they are OK with
European companies dominating US market. It is rather because there are no
European companies at the moment capable of dominating US market. The moment a
company in Europe starts to gain significant market share from American
companies in the US, the government would (most probably) step in and stop
them.

I'm not European, but here in Canada, I have seen how the US treats its trade
partners. Trump forced Canada to renegotiate NAFTA and got many concessions
from us. Less than 2 months after his new trade deal came into force, he is
imposing a 10% tariff on aluminum imports [1]. Before aluminum, it was
softwood lumber. In the middle, there was Bombardier passenger airplanes.

The funny thing is, in order to force Canada to renegotiate NAFTA, the US
imposed tariff's on Canadian steel and aluminum under the guise of "national
security" [2]. That is why I don't buy any claims on national security excuses
for putting tariffs or expelling companies. It's mercantilism, plain and
simple. But because it is frowned upon to talk about mercantilism in this day
and age, the US administration always covers its mercantilism with a thin
veneer of market fairness and national security.

Either that, or Canada is actually a national security threat to the US.

[1] [https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-aluminum-
tariff-1.567...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-aluminum-
tariff-1.5677036)

[2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/trump-
nationa...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/trump-national-
security-tariffs.html)

~~~
jorblumesea
While it's true that the US is backsliding in some agreements, this is mostly
due to the current administration and unclear if this will continue.

Historically, the US has mostly been a free market to both Europe and Canada,
and hasn't enacted protectionist measures overall. The US allows European car
companies to sell here despite having domestic production. Nestle, HSBC,
Astra-Zeneca, Siemens, SAP, Ericsson...these are all companies that are titans
in their respective industries and also have a large mostly dominant US
presence.

The level of US protectionism pales in comparison to what China engages in and
it's hardly fair to compare the two. Obviously there are well sourced
grievances but to compare China's protectionism to US protectionism isn't
correct.

------
JustAConspiracy
Tencent is a particularly interesting selection given their stake in Riot
Games, Activision Blizzard, Epic Games, Supercell, and others.
[https://twitter.com/Slasher/status/1291565115670695936?s=19](https://twitter.com/Slasher/status/1291565115670695936?s=19)

------
jianshen
What is his motivation for this right now? Is it just the distraction of the
week or was there a specific incident recently that triggered this?

~~~
demadog
There’s likely a lot that is not and will never be covered in the news that
the NSA and CIA know. I’m sure they look at our commentary on here, with 1% of
the geopolitical information, and chuckle.

~~~
slim
they look at your commentary and chuckle. you guys believe in NSA-CIA like
people believe in god

------
euix
Didn't Pompeo say something this week along the lines of banning China Mobile
servicing telephone calls to the U.S.? That means if you carry a cell phone
from China to the U.S. you can't get roaming service anymore?

I am surprised Lenovo hasn't been singled out yet. They supply enterprises
throughout the U.S. a lot of corporations that hand out laptops to their
employees all use Lenovo.

~~~
systematical
They ruined the ThinkPad line, please sell it to someone who can restore the
brand.

------
geokon
The ongoing anti China circus through executive orders is arbitrary and
draconian to say the least... and while I've been mostly ignoring it so far, a
lot of Americans live in China and have money on Wechat. Are they now
violating this week's "law"?

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

It's quite short and just adds a lot of FUD

~~~
jhart99
I just went to my Wechat to try to transfer my money left in there to a
friend. Transfer isn't going through.

~~~
geokon
I just managed to move part of my money to friends. Try in smaller amounts.
Sending a bunch of hongbaos works up to a point as well (then it requires SMS
verification which I can't do right now)

~~~
jhart99
After fooling around with it, I was able to move or otherwise give away the
balance in my account. I had to do in a combination of smaller hongbaos,
transfers and business transfers. I triggered face verification with the first
transfer I tried, but some how it reset after a while.

------
sneak
An important note that nobody seems to be reporting on: this is only possible
because Apple and Google have control over which apps are permitted on your
device.

The US government has no legal authority to ban publishing (including apps) in
the US. They do, however, have the ability to regulate trade between the
operators of the App Store (Apple) and the Play Store (Google), and app
publishers, which is what they're doing here.

Ban the business relationship, and they've effectively banned the publishing.
It's an end run around the US constitution, and everyone should be up in arms
about it: not just at the US government, but also at Apple and Google for
creating a legal chokepoint for mass censorship by the US federal government.

This would not be possible if end users actually exercised control over their
own devices. This is how the web works, and it's how everything else on your
device should work, too.

~~~
Phaedor
And this is why as a European I think that we should take a long and hard look
at our dependency of US technology. Its becoming more and more clear that US
is not a stable actor.

I think it would be prudent for us to force alternatives to apple and google
app stores (and other software) that are housed and owned in Europe. I have no
confidence that US intelligence is not accessing our data and setting up
profiles on Europeans that could be used for nefarious purposes.

~~~
sneak
I think a dependence upon US technology should be evaluated separately from US
services/companies/staff.

There’s nothing wrong with US tech. There is a lot wrong with US persons,
subject to capricious US military/law/spying, having real-time control over
your device or the services it needs to run.

You can say the same about Chinese tech. Nothing wrong with the device,
everything wrong with allowing a government far away real-time remote
access/power.

It’s time to peel away software from services once again.

If we break off the control of software distribution, and disable automatic
remote updates (which is manufacturer backform/RCE), hardware in the general
case can become reasonably safe again.

------
sreejithr
I agree 100% with this. I mean, there are other developing economies with
serious tech sectors like India which operate according to the rules based
open market system we have in place.

If the US doesn't take action against Chinese protectionism, why should other
countries abide by the rules and give US access to their markets? The US
provides China it's market even though China closes it down for everyone.

I think US being soft on China sets a bad precedent.

~~~
thewileyone
India has a lot of protectionism in place for their core industries as well.

Example is call centers. Foreign call centers, like in the Philippines, are
not allowed to service any company that does has operations in India.

------
mariomariomario
Wow this is huge if Tencent is out of the game in the US. What happens to
their stakes in companies like Reddit and Riot Games?

------
whateveracct
Instagram Reels is launching at a "convenient" time.. . . ..

~~~
bmitc
I do wonder if there's a deeper connection than Facebook simply having this
feature ready to go and releasing it early. Was there cooperation of the sorts
"you ban TikTok and we'll release Instagram Reels early to help distract upset
users"?

~~~
blisseyGo
Facebook has had a Tiktok competitor called Lasso for 2 years. It failed
though. They are shutting that down and simply porting the features over to
their existing Instagram app.

[https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/01/lasso-facebook-tiktok-
shut...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/01/lasso-facebook-tiktok-shut-down/)

~~~
bmitc
My comment wasn't about whether they already had it or not. It is obvious they
were already working on it. No one could develop and release a feature so
quickly. It is about the timing of the release, which could have very well
been cooperatively timed.

------
PopeDotNinja
For WeChat, how much impact will this have on Americans? As an American, I
tried signing up to communicate w/ someone in China, and I couldn't get
through the verification process.

Obviously TikTok has a big USA presence.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> As an American, I tried signing up to communicate w/ someone in China, and I
> couldn't get through the verification process.

I signed up before there was a verification process. But my understanding is
that you get vouched for by an existing account. Since you were signing up to
communicate with someone, wouldn't that person have been a natural choice to
verify you?

------
threatofrain
Rather than every nation deploying their own internal version of X, surely the
sane endgame is open source software.

~~~
ars
Someone has to store the videos though.

~~~
jojobas
Having to pay for storage seems to be a better outcome than total foreign
intelligence penetration and public opinion influencing.

~~~
Razengan
> public opinion influencing

Has the USA not been doing that all over the world since forever?

Hell, they usually just change governments directly, without even bothering
with public opinion.

~~~
mlindner
Not through intentional federal policy. It's a side effect of US companies
being the world over and US culture being spread by those companies.

------
dirtyid
Since TenCent is huge:

>Video game companies owned by Tencent will NOT be affected by this executive
order!

>White House official confirmed to the LA Times that the EO only blocks
transactions related to WeChat

>So Riot Games (League of Legends), Epic Games (Fortnite), et al are safe

[https://twitter.com/samaugustdean/status/1291576813685108736](https://twitter.com/samaugustdean/status/1291576813685108736)

I guess Chinese users will resort to Chinese IP VPNs, there's already some to
get around geofenced mainland content.

E: much downvote

~~~
Spartan-S63
I had no idea that Tencent had full ownership of Riot games. Same thing with
40% ownership of Epic Games. Wow!

~~~
Sebguer
Also some percentage of Discord.

~~~
holler
And Reddit $150M I believe (wow didn't know that about Discord).

~~~
bigpumpkin
and 5% of Tesla and 17.5% of Snapchat

------
Deimorz
Here's a diff between the two orders, if anyone else is curious about the
specific changes. I used the TikTok/ByteDance order as the "original", so
removals and additions are relative to changing that one into the
WeChat/Tencent one:
[https://gist.github.com/Deimos/8fcb95ec4017cf1a28e32f6057a91...](https://gist.github.com/Deimos/8fcb95ec4017cf1a28e32f6057a91e01/revisions)

------
nfc_
So does this mean Apple will have to remove WeChat from the App Store
everywhere in the world including China?

If Apple does this, what will it mean for their huge business in China?

~~~
bigpumpkin
Trump just neutered Iphone sales in China. Apple can't even get revenue from
WeChat now since those are transactions.

------
neves
Which workarounds you suggest around the Great Firewall of the United States
of America?

~~~
_-___________-_
Might be time to start a VPN service with exit points _in_ China!

~~~
JCharante
I get it's a joke but this is already a popular service as many services are
inaccessible outside the GFW or extremely throttled.

------
sidibe
"Threat" aside, it does seem fair for the West to reciprocate bans on
Google/Facebook etc, but not sure the best way to communicate with family in
China now if the western messaging apps are banned there and vice versa

~~~
mdorazio
Email? I know that seems dismissive, but people got along just fine before
Facebook, texting, WeChat, etc. I suspect in reality there will be an endless
whack-a-mole game with messaging services where people use a different one
fairly frequently.

~~~
yegle
The great firewall of China does block email. If your email address is blocked
1\. When you send an email to a recipient in China who is using an email
service provider whose MTA does not support SSL/TLS/STARTTLS: the delivery
attempt by your email service provider will result in a TCP reset. 2\.
Similarly, if someone in China want to send an email to your blocked email
address but their MTA doesn't support SSL/TLS/STARTTLS: their attempt to send
the email will result in a TCP reset.

I know this because my Gmail account is blocked in this way.

~~~
rsecora
And if you can reach the MTA, that means the email itself is unencrypted. So
the MTA can monitor the email content.

~~~
yegle
This goes both ways. If I want to send an email to someone but their MTA
doesn't do encryption, I might choose to encrypt the _content_ of my email,
but I have no way to hide my FROM.

Blocking the MTA server is not unheard of.

~~~
rsecora
Right, metadata is not encrypted for the MTA. That's the flaw in the email
protocol for full anonymity, even using PGP.

------
tellarin
This also potentially has many ramifications in different industries. Tencent
(owner of WeChat) is a big investor in media and entertainment companies. One
side effect, for example, is blocking financial payments to Riot Games, Epic
Games, Fortnite, and half the gaming industry.

Has anyone seem any details on what exactly it will cover?

------
danhak
What a bizarre and interesting turn. I'd give a lot to be able to sit in on
the meetings between TikTok and Microsoft right now.

I wonder if FB will come over the top with a bid.

~~~
almost_usual
> I wonder if FB will come over the top with a bid.

Doubt it, they already have a new competing product. As soon as TT engagement
drops due to friction the user will switch.

~~~
holler
I'm not so sure, Facebook fatigue is real and TikTok built a better product.

~~~
rswail
Facebook just introduced "Reels" to Instagram.

Instagram is not Facebook and is used by the same audience as TikTok.

~~~
holler
yeah I'm still not convinced... I don't use TikTok but my gf does and from
what I've seen, they've really tapped into young millenials/zoomers and
created a product that people love. Facebook fatigue _does_ seep into IG
(owned by FB). The most obvious sign of it is feature creep. FB is adding
every feature to IG that they can to stay relevant, but ultimately that's
going to bloat the app and turn it into Blue V2, which is no longer en vogue.

TikTok works because it isn't suffocated by ads and is hyper-focused on one
format, aka it's a well-designed but simple experience.

~~~
almost_usual
IG can use their existing ad platform to convince TT content producers to
switch so they can monetize.

There isn’t brand loyalty for social media platforms but there is for the
content producer. The least amount of friction and most benefit to the content
producer wins.

I see TT becoming another Snap.

Who knows though, I’m not invested in either company.

------
Lambdanaut
This is how war festers. You lose the common communication mediums. It becomes
easier and easier to see the other guy as BarBar-speaking barbarians.

Fuck the fuckers that would rather punch back than uphold their own integrity.

You can't call the other team an asshole for cheating, and then go right ahead
and cheat in the exact same way. It makes you even worse than they ever were,
because you ever presumed you were better.

How absolutely sad.

We deserve to choke on the toxic fruits these seeds may bear.

------
deevolution
Are we witnessing the end of free markets? Or the growth of decentralization?
These sorts of moves are making a very strong case for decentralized
platforms.

~~~
peteretep
More likely the end of one-sided free markets. There's no suggestion that the
US is about to pull the same shit on countries that don't try and hobble US
tech companies.

~~~
foepys
The EU will probably start to tax tech companies that avoid taxes by
registering in tax havens within the next few years. If that's the US' sole
motivation, it seems like a receipt for disaster.

~~~
peteretep
That sounds like it’s more likely to raise US tax revenues tho, so I imagine
there’ll be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, and no action.

------
dirtyid
Also wonder if this affects wechat pay, it's gotten pretty huge in Canada in
the last few years. But we have much more mainlanders. The knock on affects
will be interesting.

And if wechat allows web only, will US ban the service from browsers GFC
style? Seems like a different can of worms than blocking apps.

------
rchaud
I don't see why the executive order can't simply be to compel Apple and Google
to display warnings on the download page, or one when the app launches. They
already do thisshould you dare to install something that originated outside of
their walled garden.

Let the consumer make the choice whether to use it or not.

The case against Huawei at least has merit; protectionist policies against
threats to strategically important industries (telecom infrastructure) has
numerous precedents.

This just seems like a favour to Zuckerberg after he gave the all-clear to
unfettered lying in political ads. Surely that would have no impact on
"national security, foreign policy and the economy".

------
tehjoker
Every step they take to distance the population from Chinese products makes
the next steps towards heightened conflict easier for the government. China
isn't an enemy of the US people, only of our elites. Part of what they're
doing is protectionism for US buisness, which is funny because when US
business is strong they promote zero trade barriers so that the "free market"
means total domination by US interests. Part of what they're doing is creating
a foreign enemy so they can blame the grotesque failures of the government on
external enemies in an election year (both Rs and Ds).

------
HALtheWise
I haven't seen any discussion about how other non-China non-US countries feel
about TikTok being forced under American ownership. For example, I understand
that TikTok is quite popular in the middle east, and I imagine that some
countries there might not be happy with American intelligence services having
access to their citizens data, at least if they are also subscribing to the
beliefs that short video clips are a national security matters. I suspect
those countries wished that Bytedance sold just their US operations, but it
appears they are instead selling _all_ non-China operations.

------
live_video
Wouldn't there be some value in decentralizing social media? Surely, countries
where most of their users are communicating via Facebook puts them at extreme
disadvantage, especially if they need FB to comply with some sort of subpoena.
We don't really have global central news networks, so why would we ever think
global social media platforms would ever work? Plus decentralizing social
media could possibly help with bot/hatespeech/fakenews problems, or at least
localize them a bit more to reduce the speed and scale problem.

------
jitendrac
I can understand the US decision of banning huawei reasoning for national
security, but case against TikTok is not something I grasp understandable.
Even India(where I live) banned Tiktok. At first I believed,its just temporary
and will be lifted in few days but it didn't.

These types of actions will not benefit anyone, just toss name of china with
other country in above scenario. It will be something like,

\- EU banning Tesla because of its USA origin

\- US banning Reliance/Tata because of its Indian Origin

\- Russia banning google/facebook to favor their local companies

\- etc.

This is something that should never happen,but sadly it is.

------
afrojack123
Only took a couple decades to do this. A messaging app that allows China to
read everything but not other countries should be illegal to begin with.
Entirely secure or not at all is the way.

~~~
nicbou
Isn't this exactly what US companies do, and what the US government wants to
do?

~~~
ffggvv
the us needs a warrant to spy on its own citizens

~~~
xvector
I don’t understand how you can say that with a straight face after everything
we’ve seen about the NSA, PRISM, etc.

~~~
ffggvv
none of that contradicts what i said.

any targeted surveillance requires a warrant

------
WhyNotHugo
There's a lot of practices that China has that I disagree with.

There's a lot of practices that US has that I disagree with.

China has traditionally been __very __closed and is very slowly moving to be
slightly more open to other countries.

The US used to be kinda open, but is shutting itself in like crazy.

This is way so many countries are pushing so hard to reduce their reliance on
the US. This can only bode badly for the US, while the rest of the world
continues slowly uniting. Not _against_ the US, just uniting to work together.

------
ken47
No one forced American corporations to do business with China. America's
current lack of "greatness" is America's own fault. There is a nonzero chance
that America is going to face serious economic distress in the coming decade.
Those who made poor leadership decisions for America's economy are desperate
to find a scapegoat. No one forced American corporations to do business with
China.

~~~
president
Your scapegoat narrative is an unproductive one and apologist at worst. As
usual, people are getting wrapped up in the "America bad" trope while ignoring
the fact that there are real people being targeted and having their lives
tracked and terrorized by the Chinese government. I don't know what country
you're from but if someone was behaving badly in your house, I would be
kicking them out too. You'd have to be stupid to let a burglar in your house
and offer them a room.

~~~
ken47
I'm definitely not a China apologist. This story would be a comedy if it were
not a tragedy.

------
fermienrico
No one seems to be asking the most illuminating remark about this situation:

 _The US should allow TikTok if China agrees to allow unrestricted use of
Instagram in China. That should have been the deal that Trump could make to
expose the assymmetry of "open market" that China keeps touting about._

Everything, all arguments in this thread fall apart if people are complaining,
condemning US's move to block TikTok. I agree, the justification provided by
President Trump hides behind national security, it would have been far better
to make a case for free trade and unrestricted access to China's domestic
market.

Imagine, the opportunity for Instagram to advertise to a country of 1.4
billion people. The opportunity cost is massive.

------
patcon
I feel like the underlying third variable in this whole thread rests in the
question, "Have you or your company ever accepted or considered Chinese
investment?"

I would absolutely love to know how many of these folks saying "We need to
uphold Western open values and not reciprocally punish" have business
entanglements with Chinese funds.

------
pinkfoot
Does anyone know whether the ban on WeChat means WeChat will not be available
on iOS in China?

If so, Hauwei must be very happy.

------
swordsmith
Wechat is used by a vast majority of overseas Chinese (and increasingly non-
Chinese as well), and a lot of the employees would message each other about
work matters over WeChat because of convenience. All these messages are routed
through Tencent's Chinese servers.

------
rollschild
Let's face it: it has nothing to do with "treat people the way they treat
you." It's just Trump trying to win/secure the votes from his loyal
supporters.

Does TikTok grab user data and analyze them for ads, recommendations, etc?
Sure, so do Instagram. But does TikTok send those data back to Chinese
government so that it would potentially threaten U.S. national security? We
need proof, but so far none. Here's an article of French hacker Elliot
Alderson (@fs0c131y) analyzing TikTok code:
[https://medium.com/@fs0c131y/tiktok-logs-logs-
logs-e93e81626...](https://medium.com/@fs0c131y/tiktok-logs-logs-
logs-e93e8162647a)

So IMHO the two real reasons Trumps banned TikTok and WeChat are: 1\. His
supporters are mad that everything is made in China. It violates some basic
economics principles but that's fine. 2\. What happened to that Oklahoma
rally, Trump really took it personal.

This ban put hundreds of thousands of Chinese people (including those who are
already U.S. citizens or green card holders) in the U.S. to a difficult
position. They don't have other ways to communicate with there
friends/families in China other than WeChat. But I guess, those people
(including myself), are the least important factors Trump worries about, if he
even cares at all.

~~~
MrStonedOne
> But does TikTok send those data back to Chinese government so that it would
> potentially threaten U.S. national security? We need proof, but so far none.

How about the No place to hide laws that mandate this? Proof enough for you?

------
c789a123
Photos of the CCP community in these so called companies:

[https://twitter.com/hnjhj/status/1291906465775509506/photo/1](https://twitter.com/hnjhj/status/1291906465775509506/photo/1)

------
whoevercares
This is just the start, introducing [https://www.state.gov/announcing-the-
expansion-of-the-clean-...](https://www.state.gov/announcing-the-expansion-of-
the-clean-network-to-safeguard-americas-assets/)

------
gumby
Can someone explain the motivation?

~~~
mienski
The stated motivation is to reduce misinformation from China in lead up to
election. Pretty wild that Facebook which was 100% proven to have been used
for Russian misinformation in the last, and this election, somehow dodged a
bullet on this...

My (totally personal opinion guess) is that this is just another way to poke
the bear as part of the tit-for-tat with China and maybe a minor contributing
factor that someone has got in his ear and blamed TikTok for his low campaign
event turnout after there was a TikTok meme to RSVP to his events to make them
sound like they were going to be huge, then embarrass him with low numbers.

Cynical perspective is that one of his friends with a stake in Facebook got in
his ear about China using TikTok to make fun of him or something, and now
Instagram Reels is right there to pick up the slack. Nothing would surprise me
with this govt anymore. I mean the news is all talking about TikTok now
instead of COVID-19... troop bounties... so on...

~~~
perennate
I don't see anything about misinformation or the election in the executive
orders [1, 2]. It talks about data collection, e.g. "potentially allowing
China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build
dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate
espionage" and " the application captures the personal and proprietary
information of Chinese nationals visiting the United States, thereby allowing
the Chinese Communist Party a mechanism for keeping tabs on Chinese citizens
who may be enjoying the benefits of a free society for the first time in their
lives".

[1] [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-
or...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-
addressing-threat-posed-tiktok/) [2] [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
actions/executive-or...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-posed-wechat/)

Edit: okay, there is a bit, e.g. "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"

------
nojvek
I’ll be impressed when US says we’re not depending on China to manufacture and
instead bringing the big dogs like Apple and the Fashion behemoths to US.

We want a net export to China instead of a net import. At-least a resilient
manufacturing industry.

------
ngcc_hk
It is fair.

If both sides can be in ... but now only China can be in, influence the media,
use $ to buy and work with USA firm in USA etc. etc. But not USA. It is so one
sided that China will win only in the arrangement.

Time to restructure. It is time!

------
kerng
Although the focus of the discussion seems about TikTok, what really should
get more attentions WeChat and Tencent - this is basically the only way one
can communicate in modern fashion with people in China.

------
hoyle-hortler
This is what Monero is for. Any cryptocurrency which hides the value and
participants of transactions on its chain will always have value as long as
asymmetric power exists in society.

------
thewileyone
This brings to mind the US auto industry where GM and Ford kept thinking that
building cars their way would win and then lost to cars from Japan that were
more attuned to customer needs.

If WeChat is taken off Samsung and Apple phones, it would drive more
purchasers to replacing their existing with Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, etc phones
because digital payment is a way of life in China now. Overseas business users
may buy 2nd phones to be able to access the China partners and markets.

BTW, Tencent is not going to cripple WeChat to not do transactions. They make
too much money from it and can afford to ignore this autocratic request.

------
trident1000
Theres an incredible amount of foreign propaganda in western social media
anyway. Twitter took down like a million CCP accounts the other month (they
made an announcement about it) and thats just the ones they know about. This
is a step thats at least in spirit probably makes sense but there are more
larger issues. Reddit literally has an API to comment...you think all those
policial default subs are real comments? Not a chance. Reddit doesnt care
because it drives engagement.

~~~
realusername
Almost every CCP-owned channel on Facebook has bought fake subscribers, it's
so visible they don't even try to hide it. As an example, CGTN French has 20M
subscribers, more than any local French newspapers despite being virtually
unknown in the country. If you go by subscribers count, it would be the most
popular news platform of the country...

~~~
baby
Link?

~~~
realusername
[https://www.facebook.com/CGTNFrancais](https://www.facebook.com/CGTNFrancais)

You can compare that with the top newspapers of the country:

[https://www.facebook.com/lemonde.fr](https://www.facebook.com/lemonde.fr)
[https://www.facebook.com/lefigaro](https://www.facebook.com/lefigaro)

------
tucif
If Apple/Google are forced to take out the apps from their stores, would they
have to take them out of the US only or worldwide?

------
tmpz22
Doesn’t this eviscerate Chinese investment in SV?

~~~
almost_usual
No because wealthy people care about making more money not principles or
nationalism.

------
khuey
Seems pretty weak to be honest. Definitely not the "American Great Firewall"
that some were predicting.

~~~
joe_the_user
After 45 days, would anyone logging into a Wechat server in China be guilty of
circumventing an embargo? Would they have to actually be sending money?

~~~
khuey
Unclear, but defining accessing a server as a "transaction" for these purposes
would be extremely aggressive, difficult to enforce, and challenged in court.

------
mnm1
Can't have China influencing the election. That's Russia's job. It's not like
these companies are new or doing things that every tech company in the world
isn't doing. National security is clearly a pretense that's laughable. If that
was the case, we'd see Facebook, etc. banned in many countries.

------
sudoaza
This should be taken to the WTO if it wasn't coopted by the US and allies

~~~
xvector
Won’t make a difference, Trump would sooner pull out of the WTO than have his
decisions dictated by it.

~~~
sudoaza
True, but that might even be a good thing.

------
ponker
This feels like the kind of thing that could make sense as part of a broad
portfolio of carefully analyzed actions to thwart the rise of CCP soft and
hard power, but instead is a one-off poorly considered fit of pique from a
self-dealing bona fide moron right before an election.

------
classics2
Is he trying to get Microsoft a better deal? Like, right out in the open?

------
TheJoeDonger
Good, the US should reciprocate the treatment it receives from China.

------
Ericson2314
Is there nothing between turning the other cheek and stopping to their level?

Ugh.

------
ProAm
Does anyone think Facebook is requesting for this to happen? Trump and
Zuckerberg are friends (on friendly terms anyways). Trump needs Facebook for
reelection purposes, Facebook is losing users to TikTok. Seems like a win-win
for these two to team up like this? A little quid pro quo?

------
afrojack123
This is what happens when your app behaves like malware.

------
vsskanth
Seems arbitrary and capricious to me. USA is a democracy. If foreign apps are
a threat laws should be passed to protect user data privacy and maintain data
sovereignty and made equally applicable to all.

------
jimbob45
Conspiracy theory: this is being spun as an anti-US move despite being totally
sensible with precedent.

We did _literally_ the same thing with Grindr. Why would we not do the same on
a platform full of CP?

------
thewileyone
China is going to declare war on the US dollar.

------
return1
Time to ban AWS in Europe too. Maybe cut the transatlantic cables too. I mean
we ve known for ten years we are definitely being spied on and did nothing

------
GermanDude
What is it mean to the future of ADRs?

------
ffggvv
would any company bother acquiring wechats american operations or are we just
letting them disappear?

------
iask
Is DJI on the pending list?

~~~
rootsudo
Time to buy a drone before they're sold out.

~~~
iask
I have two of their drones. Hope I can continue to fly. It’s helped me a lot
since this pandemic started, being able to take a fun distraction. I’m able to
just zone out from all those meetings, calls, reports, emails, code etc. etc.

------
codecamper
time for android phones. let's get to work community.

------
einarfd
I wonder how the TikTok userbase in the US is going to react to this? This
could galvanized teens to action against the Trump administration. On the
other hand, they could just ignore it aswell.

------
mkbkn
So WeChat is likely to be banned by the US govt?

------
WillistheWillow
Trump doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

China is creating a social credit system that exerts a ridiculous amount on
control over its citizens, and spies on their every move. Who in their right
mind doesn't think that they would force TikTok to do the same on global
citizens - not to mention manipulate them with propaganda.

Not to mention that whole imprisonment, torture, enslavement, and
sterilization of the entire Turkic Uighur population. The real question is why
do we tolerate ANYTHING Chinese?

------
ashtonkem
I wonder if he's actually followed the administrative procedures act; often a
lot of Trump proclamations end up being stricken down by the court for not
following the proper rules. That's exactly why DACA remains in place; while
the president has a lot of power over this area, there are still rules and
processes that have to be followed.

------
shahbaby
Finally some good news

------
TMWNN
Explanation of CFIUS and why and how Trump can use it:
[https://www.lawfareblog.com/tiktok-and-law-primer-case-
you-n...](https://www.lawfareblog.com/tiktok-and-law-primer-case-you-need-
explain-things-your-teenager)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Our 70s-era national security regime needs desperate Congressional overhaul. I
take particular peeve with the prohibitions on judicial review of CFIUS
actions.

~~~
perennate
Sounds like these 1970s laws were actually a Congressional overhaul of earlier
legislation, see e.g.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Econom...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act#Curtailment_of_emergency_executive_powers)

------
joshfraser
For once, I agree with Trump that governments shouldn't be spying on users
data. But let's start by ending the NSA dragnet.

------
babesh
This is obviously just a tactic by the Trump administration to distract people
from the US economy tanking because of the mishandling of covid-19. If you
haven't noticed, the US has much bigger problems. How about covid-19, the
economy, lack of universal healthcare, weak education system, huge deficits,
etc?

I am not blaming the mishandling of covid-19 solely on the Trump
administration. I am just pointing out their Wizard of Oz distraction tactic
and how the vast majority of people fall for it.

There is an economic competition between the US and China but this move is
pure silly. WeChat isn’t doing anything in the US. It’s for Chinese people to
talk to family in China.

~~~
em500
Stoking animosity towards outsiders is a time honored tactic of all bad
regimes (including that of the PRC) to distract citizens from their own
failings. Time honored because it works almost every time.

------
wwarner
Laws and law enforcement are the only sane ways to deal with espionage or
whatever the accusation is. What Trump is doing here _must_ be illegal, I hope
it is challenged and defeated in court.

------
c789a123
Great action, I fully support!

~~~
wildrhythms
What's the motivation?

~~~
c789a123
The free world gave the criminal CCP regime a free pass after the 1989
massacre. The same criminal regime get stronger in the last 30 years and put
on a capitalist shell on its bloody skin. But it never stopped its criminal
practices but has been doing it more relentlessly just with more concealment.
For about 20 years it made large scale human organ sells from people they
kidnapped or arrested. It put up huge concentration camps in Xinjing to get
rid of some minor race people in the number of millions. That is just a small
sample of its crimes still actively happening. I am glad US starts to realize
the CCP regime is not a country following normal human ethics.

~~~
c789a123
A country not following normal human ethics should not be allowed to corrupt
the free world unchecked.

------
sozy777
OK This is huge. Trump isn't just banning TikTok he's banning Tencent and it's
holdings too from operating in the US. To put this is perspective Tencent owns
Riot Games (League of Legends) and has stakes in Epic Games (Fortnite),
Ubisoft (Assassin's Creed) and Activision Blizzard (Call of Duty). Overall
Tencent owns 108 companies across media, entertainment, fintech and education.
This is going to be a mess. (universal music and Spotify also owned partially)

Also how will impact companies of which Tencent owns less than 50%?

~~~
Rebelgecko
It's only WeChat. Reddit, Riot, Epic etc are unimpacted

~~~
threatofrain
If the justification is that these apps are going to be used as social
surveillance and manipulation apps, then surely Reddit and games with social
features are next.

------
hnxx
I know much of western people agree with Trump's decision to ban ByteDance and
Wechat, and it's fair to me when it's based on reciprocal. But actually,
ByteDance and Wechat(Tencent Holding) was and is growing more like a US
company then a company with China Communism background. A lot of employee of
ByteDance/Wechat are engineers like the engineers in hackernews. Even the CEO
of bytedance, Zhangyiming, is now cursed in China for earlier friendly voice
to US and western world. I mean, why hurt the companies and engineers are or
was friendly to US. The recently ban action is turning friend to enemy, why
not put the punishment to other unfriendly subject or entity.

------
newbie578
After seeing some of the comments here and seeing their half-baked
"libertarian' views which are grounded in fantasy, I am speaking out and
saying: Good job! It is about time! I fully support decisions like this.

There is no point in playing a "fair" game if the player (China) won't follow
the rules.

------
glloydell
I realize that this is completely speculative correlation buuuut...

Part of me wonders if Trump was briefed on the Russian law going into effect
last month :

Nov 2019 - [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-50507849](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50507849)

> Russia has passed a law banning the sale of certain devices that are not
> pre-installed with Russian software.

>

> The law will come into force in July 2020 and cover smartphones, computers
> and smart televisions.

And is literally just aping Russian policy :

August 2020 - [https://www.state.gov/announcing-the-expansion-of-the-
clean-...](https://www.state.gov/announcing-the-expansion-of-the-clean-
network-to-safeguard-americas-assets/)

> Clean Store: To remove untrusted applications from U.S. mobile app stores.
> PRC apps threaten our privacy, proliferate

> viruses, and spread propaganda and disinformation. American’s most sensitive
> personal and business information must be

> protected on their mobile phones from exploitation and theft for the CCP’s
> benefit.

------
iandanforth
Under what authority can he issue this order?

~~~
perennate
The order says:

> By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws
> of the United States of America, including the International Emergency
> Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National
> Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United
> States Code,

------
baby
I’m mixed about this. On one hand the US as the most powerful country should
lead and be an example of the free world. On the other hand China is playing
an asymmetric game with foreign companies and has banned many US companies
from entering their market.

Now they’re still a developing country, so this would be fine by me, except
that the Chinese government is committing crimes against humanity and getting
more and more powerful at the same time. This is really dangerous, and the
only thing I can think of is germany pre-WWII where Hitler had huge approval
ratings. Chinese people are extremely pro-CCP even in the US, this is
frightening imo. And most countries are doing nothing about the xinjiang and
hongkong situations. So maybe this is a good move...

------
aliante
And China has a massive 5th column based here already, especially in tech.

------
vmlinuz
To be clear, TikTok and WeChat are quite different 'threats', both real, but
it's not clear how dangerous:

TikTok is aimed at a wide market, and it's a content app - there are two
worries with it, data and influence. If they are installed on a significant
number of devices in the US/the 'West', and their user data is stored in or
available to Chinese networks, that data is available to the Chinese
government on-demand. Secondly, if they have significant enough cultural
influence, they can use that to promote/demote certain topics or specific
content, for a variety of purposes.

WeChat seems to have no serious ambitions beyond China and the Chinese
diaspora, nowadays. It's used by people all over the world to keep in touch
with their friends and families, and to do business, with people in China, and
it's widely-known that the content is actively monitored and censored by/on
behalf of the Chinese government. Although VPNs etc are available, it's really
the only significant communication and social media platform available in (and
into) China. There's also pretty good evidence (although mostly anecdotal,
AFAIK) that it's a channel for nationalistic propaganda, government-
coordinated action and similar amongst the Chinese diaspora - actively so,
beyond the passive effect of censored content.

None of these things are to say that billions of people can't happily use
those platforms, every day, all over the world! But they also cannot be
completely ignored...

And before anyone starts with "but the American government is just the same!",
it's not, it's really not. The Chinese government is a literal totalitarian,
authoritarian, one-man dictatorship. However much Trump cosplays as a
dictator, and however much authoritarianism he demonstrates, there are huge
qualitative differences.

------
qppo
At least the Chinese Communist Party has the decency to make policy that has
the effect of banning foreign businesses from operating and kangaroo courts to
keep up the charade.

I think this is going to be tossed out in court. The President does not have
the power to unilaterally decide trade policy, and it's really hard to argue
that a consumer software product has national security implications (even if I
think it does, I don't think our courts have technically literate judges who
would agree).

If you want to provide consumer privacy protections that would prevent the
alleged (and very likely) malfeasance of nominally-private businesses from
China, _write some fucking policy_ instead of signing an EO with no weight.

Another day, more disillusionment from our federal government's ability to
govern. Regardless of how much I want something like this to be in place, I
want Congress to write a law that enshrines consumer privacy protection and
recognizes that _any_ business doing what they purport Chinese businesses to
be doing is a national security threat ; be it from businesses foreign or
domestic.

------
ulfw
Forget I said anything. HN is infiltrated by propaganda without people even
realising.

~~~
forsaken
Like...China?

~~~
myopenid4
Well China does have a valid reason to outlaw Google et. al, because they
publicly siphon your data and are not shy about it. Also if you're gonna
downvote, provide a reason and counter-point. This isn't reddit and the
downvote button is not for "I don't like this".

~~~
gpm
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good,
> and it makes boring reading.

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a
> semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.

From the guidelines

Downvoting because you disagree has also been acceptable on this site, since
basically forever
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171)

------
troughway
This is a fantastic start.

More people need to become aware of what China is currently doing with their
so-called "reeducation camps".

I would like to see other countries doing the same, and not just with fancy
(but mostly useless) things like TikTok, but cut off Chinese involvement in
anything critical where countries depend on them.

It has become clear they have total disregard for human rights.

