> It has gone from "not a ban" because they just have to sell, to "not a ban" because because the website is still available
These are both true, though. Again, if you want to see a ban, look at how Facebook is treated by China.
But fair enough, people are using the term "ban" inconsistently. I wouldn't say anyone's moving the goalposts as much as we're using an ambiguous term interchangeably.
> If France said they were going to ban NVDA unless NVDA sells to a French national we would call it a ban
This is tautology. You literally said if Sally were to do X to Andy unless {}, then X = X.
> Nobody sits around pontificating that it technically wasn't a ban because all Google needed to do what follow Chinese law on censorship
You can't go to Google.com in China. You will be able to go to TikTok.com and access its content freely after it's been, per your definition, banned. From a free-speech perspective, that seems material.
I get your point from a free-trade perspective. This is obviously not a free-trade bill. Maybe that's where the discussion is losing traction...
These are both true, though. Again, if you want to see a ban, look at how Facebook is treated by China.
But fair enough, people are using the term "ban" inconsistently. I wouldn't say anyone's moving the goalposts as much as we're using an ambiguous term interchangeably.
> If France said they were going to ban NVDA unless NVDA sells to a French national we would call it a ban
This is tautology. You literally said if Sally were to do X to Andy unless {}, then X = X.
> Nobody sits around pontificating that it technically wasn't a ban because all Google needed to do what follow Chinese law on censorship
You can't go to Google.com in China. You will be able to go to TikTok.com and access its content freely after it's been, per your definition, banned. From a free-speech perspective, that seems material.
I get your point from a free-trade perspective. This is obviously not a free-trade bill. Maybe that's where the discussion is losing traction...