Comment by rwarfield

Comment by rwarfield 4 days ago

5 replies

View on Hacker News

> PRC banned exporting Bytedance algo. By that logic, no US companies are independent private companies due to US export controls. And TBH both points are true.

Chinese state control over private companies is far more pervasive, and less bound by rule-of-law, than that of the U.S. Export controls are not even the H2O molecule at the tip of the iceberg.

> Even PRC has never forced a US company from divesting US ownership

Bytedance is not being forced to divest; they can leave the market, just like Google and many others had to leave China.

maxglute 4 days ago

>more pervasive

US spectrum export controls have been every bit as pervasive as PRC ones, pretending muh "rule of law" is a distinction without difference at this point. It's functionally the same.

>forced to divest

If US law is forced divestiture, then Bytedance is "force" to leave, because having US nationalize a PRC company is obviously a nonstarter except for the terminally stupid like noahopinion. Unlike Google + western platforms who "chose" (read: not banned) to leave because they "chose" not to comply with PRC laws that applies to all companies, including domestic PRC ones. The difference is US has no equitable law, i.e. some sort of data privacy law, that enables Bytedance to operate in US... while following the same laws that US companies do, as if Bytedance wasn't already bending backwards following additional requirements that US platforms do not have to follow (i.e. functionally Oracle JV).

Like fine, Bytedance needs to follow US laws, except US laws is designed specifically to prevent PRC companies from operating, vs PRC laws is designed to allow everyone to operate, just said operation is onerous - see retarded reciprocal argument that US companies should operate in PRC without abiding by PRC censorship laws that domestic platforms has to abide by. There's a reason FB and Google had internal programs to re-enter PRC market compliant with PRC laws (before being axed by internal dissent), because it's still feasble for US platforms to operate in PRC while being US (or at least JV) owned. So let's not pretend what US is doing is the same thing - PRC is more rule of law, US rule by law in this comparison. But again, functionally that hardly matters.

Reply View 4 replies
  • rwarfield 4 days ago

    > US spectrum export controls have been every bit as pervasive as PRC ones, pretending muh "rule of law" is a distinction without difference at this point. It's functionally the same.

    As I said, export controls are such a minor part of the problem as to hardly be worth mentioning. The pervasive control I'm speaking of is things like the fact that ByteDance (like all large Chinese companies) would have an internal CCP committee with influence over personnel and strategic decisions.

    > having US nationalize a PRC company is obviously a nonstarter except for the terminally stupid like noahopinion

    This is wrong on many levels. No one is talking about nationalizing TikTok (which is not a PRC company) and certainly not ByteDance.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • maxglute 4 days ago

      >CCP committee with influence over personnel and strategic decisions

      Party committees as part of 93 company law basically creates dumb shit like organizing staff picnics for companies with more than 3 CCP members, which is basically any reasonably sized company since 1/8 of country are CCP members. It is much more minor than export controls. The "pervasive control" exists in the sense that there is higher level coordination like META having US intelligence on board, or forming partnerships with said agencies. Fixating on minor shit like internal CCP committee is propaganda trying to pretend somehow US companies are less influenced by geo/politics when they are every bit as much. The big stuff is again, distinction without difference.

      > TikTok which is not a PRC company

      This is being obtuse like people pretending TikTok being based in Singapore/incorporated in Caymen somehow seperates it from Bytedance's (quartered in Beijing) PRC roots. I'll grant you DE-nationalizing isn't "technically" the same as nationalizing, but geo/politically it's obviously a none starter just like if Beijing told Boeing they would have to divest from US ownership. PRC would never allow US to normalize that kind of behaviour, and vice versa. DE-nationalizing tiktok, i.e. nationalizing by parties other than PRC is another distinction without difference.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • rwarfield 4 days ago

        Right, the CCP committees are just there to organize picnics. Sure.

        Look, I think anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in both places understands that there is a major difference in the way private companies relate to the government in China versus in the U.S. For example, it's far more common for U.S. companies to sue the government over laws or policies they disagree with, whereas in China it's just taken as given that officials have a lot of discretion.

        You bring up Meta having US intelligence onboard - I assume you're referring to the Edward Snowden / PRISM revelations. Remember that this was a huge scandal precisely because the idea of American companies working with intelligence agencies to spy (even inadvertently) on Americans is considered so repugnant. Whereas in China it's just taken as given that the government can read your WeChat (or whatever) messages whenever they feel like it, and any encrypted messaging apps that gain a following are quickly removed from app stores.

        This is not a distinction without a difference; China is a totalitarian state where you have essentially no right to speech or privacy. The U.S., for all its flaws, is not like that.

        > DE-nationalizing... geo/politically it's obviously a none starter just like if Beijing told Boeing they would have to divest...

        Can you not see the hypocrisy here, when China functionally bans almost the entire U.S. internet sector?

        Reply View 1 reply
        • maxglute 4 days ago

          > Sure.

          I mean yes? That's what they do - dumb "political work" activities. It's not the high level strategic coordination, which I said exists (as they do in US), but citing pedestrian CCP committees ain't it. It's Karen from HR buying birthday cakes tier of activities. As someone who spent significant time in both places, sure, PRC companies doesn't fuck with central gov, US companies gets to try to. But push comes to shove, US companies cave, so for the purpose of foreign policy and geopolitics, especially with respect to great powers competition, it's a distinction without difference, because US companies will be subservient to national security interests, with minimal discretion, as they should be. Reminder much chip restrictions were done without industry input / consultation before roll out. Because US system capable of unilaterally laying down the law as well as CCP.

          >is not like that.

          Yes and NSA totally dismantled domestic spying / FVEY hack to spy on host nationals via third countries (rule of law you know) because Americans found it repugnant, except not. Ex-CIA hires still deciding facebook content policy on "misinfo". US voters thinks lots of things US gov does are repugnant, but functionally cannot change it, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

          >functionally bans

          Except PRC doesn't. Entire US internet sector is welcome to operate in PRC, provided they follow onerous (expensive) PRC filtering regulations. Which they choose not to. US platforms functionally choses not to operate in PRC, because they don't want to follow the same PRC laws that PRC companies has to follow. Let's not forget these platforms were blocked post 2009 minority riots for actual valid national security reasons, FB/Twitter refused to censor / filter calls for retaliatory violence. Queue PRC platforms implementing onerously expensive human moderation... which later western platforms adopted following NZ shooting, myanmar killings etc. We have TikTok following the same US laws every other US platform follows... and more (again, Oracle basically JV arrangment), i.e. TikTok operating at regulatory disadvantage. Incidentally after getting up their expensive human moderation programs, FB/Google tried but internal dissent killed efforts because they spent the money and can scaling system to PRC. If anything PRC would LOVE if western platforms returned, followed PRC law, and start handing over dissident info per PRC cyber security regulations / get squeezed by PRC influence.

          The hypocrisy is thinking they're remotely comparable situations when TikTok chooses to compete in an unfair US regulatory enviroment and western companies choose not to compete in a fair regulatory PRC enviroment. TikTok even offered to basically have US intelligence/oversight on all US activities. The hypocrisy is there is no onerous, concessions TikTok can do to operate in US as a PRC company, even ones that puts it at significant competitive disadvantaged (extra regulatory costs) vs western platforms choosing not to shoulder the same regulatory costs as other PRC companies (100,000s human moderators ain't cheap). Extra hubris when proponents of "CCP ban US platforms" thinks US platforms shouldn't follow PRC laws and somehow are victims. Or that complying to same filtering laws is the same as divestiture. It's difference between house rules being, clean your dishes, versus get a sex change.

          Reply View 0 replies