
The Rank Hypocrisy of a TikTok Ban - MindGods
https://www.wired.com/story/trump-tiktok-ban-hypocrisy/
======
gruez
Is it really "hypocrisy" if China started it first, by banning American apps?
If country A bans imports of widgets from country B, and country B retaliates
with a similar ban, is it hypocrisy?

~~~
rvz
Careful. You’re spilling out ‘logic’ and ‘truths’ here that doesn’t fit
WIRED’s narrative. Indeed Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat were banned in China
long before TikTok even existed so Wired’s point of ‘hypocrisy’ really falls
short at this.

China has other alternative social networks like LINE, Wechat to take their
place but alongside the TikTok ban in India, they were also among the 58 apps
banned too.

I guess they say it’s hypocrisy because it’s ‘Trump’ doing the ban. But when
Biden started to tell his own staff to delete TikTok from their phones it’s
apparent that it is more of a security concern than a ‘Trump embarrassment’
issue, such that they have less trust in Chinese-owned tech companies in
general.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
And remember that it's not just a matter of trust - we _know_ , from people
who've reverse engineered the app, that TikTok is engaging in extremely
invasive data collection. It was just a month ago that they were caught
copying the contents of your clipboard from the background!

------
SpicyLemonZest
The US is far from the only country floating a TikTok ban, so it’s difficult
to believe this article’s very US centric explanation. If it’s about
protecting Facebook, why do Japan and potentially Australia also believe
there’s a legitimate threat? (I’m excluding India because they have other
plausible reasons to want to mess with China.)

~~~
peacefulhat
Dunno, but US govt is leaning on them in public and probably behind the scenes
to encourage a ban. Pompeo called out an unnamed ally for not joining the US
ban of Huawei in a recent speech. The protectionism isn’t purely monetary but
also about retaining indirect control over communication platforms and
infrastructure.

~~~
Thetawaves
I would wager the motive is less about control, and more about about shared
values / identity / mutual understanding.

------
Thetawaves
What about this ban is Hypocrisy? It seems perfectly in line with the freedoms
given to American corporations operating in China (IE None.)

I'm not convinced the free speech concerns even apply when TikTok meticulously
grooms the content offered on the platform. Who's speech is being infringed?
The Chinese censors?

~~~
javert
Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans who use the platform, and also
Americans who work there.

More generally, violating one right of one American threatens all rights of
all Americans.

TikTok should be banned if and only if it presents a military or intelligence
threat.

~~~
gruez
>Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans who use the platform

What rights? 1st amendment? Your speech isn't being curtailed, you just have
to take it elsewhere. If you interpret this as a trade dispute everything
looks fine. Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans
either.

>also Americans who work there.

what rights are we talking about?

~~~
javert
I think your conception of rights is far too narrow.

If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone,
it's a violation of my rights.

The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not intended to be exhaustive. One
reason some people opposed the Bill of Rights was because they feared that it
would later be misunderstood to be exhaustive.

> Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either.

It absolutely does. It prevents me from buying a printer from whoever I want.

Look, I get it: like most people, you probably don't care about a theoretical
way of looking at rights.

Nonetheless, we should all agree that the American government shouldn't do
things that harm Americans. Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even
if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in
our self interest as individual Americans.

The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to
delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra
the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for.

~~~
gruez
> I think your conception of rights is far to narrow. If the government forces
> me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my
> rights.

Is this something that's recognized by the courts, or your own headcanon? If
it's the latter, there no point arguing because it basically devolves into a
generic "what's the role of government" discussion.

>Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners,
hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as
individual Americans.

So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by
both parties.

>The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to
delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra
the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for.

This is probably why you're being downvoted. When you say "x violates your
rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights. They
don't mean some amorphous concept that roughly equates to "is the government
doing the right thing?".

~~~
javert
It is a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. It already was,
even before I commented.

Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion.

~~~
gruez
>Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion.

The main issue is that it looks like you're attempting to do a motte and
bailey. You start off by making a bold claim (the bailey) of "Banning TikTok
violates the rights of Americans" (which is commonly understood by most people
to mean it violates the constitution/legal rights of Americans). A few
comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by
"violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans".

[1]
[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey)

Also, regarding your other comment

> You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to
> the new content.

It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one
rather than starting two comment trees.

~~~
javert
> A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you
> meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans".

No, I didn't equivocate between "harms Americans" and "violates rights." The
former is an explanation for why we need a theoretical framework of rights.
That was pertinent in that part of the discussion.

I get that you think that everyone understands "rights" to mean "rights in a
narrow legal sense," but as I said before, I don't agree. In fact, I think
most people understand "rights" in my sense. Anyway, I needed to say what I
said, the way I said it, to make my point. Yes, this _is_ a discussion about
political theory, and already was, before I joined it.

On your premise about the word "rights," which I disagree with, I would have
acted in bad faith, so you are right to raise that as a complaint, from your
perspective.

I don't think this is a productive conversation anymore, so I am asking you
kindly to refrain from responding further, on the presumption that you
continue to believe that I have acted at least irrationally, and possibly in
bad faith. I will not respond further.

> It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that
> one rather than starting two comment trees.

I agree, but I couldn't find the link to edit that particular comment, for
some reason, so I had to make a new comment. I know how to use HN (been on
here for a super long time), but I probably goofed somehow.

------
thedudeabides5
Sounds like classic Trump. Use the threat of a ban to force a policy change in
American interests. Maybe bargain down Microsoft’s price for TikTok along the
way.

TikTok’s user base deserves a parent company domiciled in the US and under
American regulatory and financial purview.

~~~
danielscrubs
I do hope I deserve better than that. I’d say Canada or Swiss. Now only if
they could ban FB and make their own... The slippery slope/trade wars has
begun.

