Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Mark Zuckerberg Stoked Washington’s Fears About TikTok
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-stoked-washingtons-fears-about-tiktok-11598223133
212 comments
Mark Zuckerberg knows that if another platform were sufficiently compelling, his users could turn on a dime (notice I didn't say customers). Zuckerberg is deathly afraid of competition and he is very aggressive about protecting Facebook's stranglehold on the social media advertising market.
> Zuckerberg is deathly afraid of competition and he is very aggressive about protecting Facebook's stranglehold on the social media advertising market.
It is incredibly common behavior for large businesses to raise the barrier of entry for new competitors. Almost every established business does this. It's why patents exist. Mark Zuckerberg doesn't participate in this activity to an abnormal amount.
It is incredibly common behavior for large businesses to raise the barrier of entry for new competitors. Almost every established business does this. It's why patents exist. Mark Zuckerberg doesn't participate in this activity to an abnormal amount.
Anti-competitive behavior is a federal crime. These practices are common in the USA because the Dept. of Justice has more or less stopped enforcing our anti-trust laws. Patents have nothing to do with it.
TikTok and their users are so dumb that it is no competition
Facebook is banned in China, it thus cannot even enter the competition.
Facebook is banned in China. Is it unreasonable to encourage US gvt to apply pressure for a more even playing field?
I know the narrative (and majority of comments) like to hate on Zuck, so just adding another perspective for this particular situation.
I know the narrative (and majority of comments) like to hate on Zuck, so just adding another perspective for this particular situation.
I actually see this rhetoric a lot, and I'm not completely disagreeing with it, but at the same time I'm scared of the effects of playing the same game with the CCP and the ramifications of such move: it seems to always end up in a "us versus them" scenario which further divides the world. If you see a few people backing the US government's decision of attacking Chinese apps, imagine how the Chinese people are being brainwashed to hate on the US gov for attacking Chinese apps. IMO it is only with leading by example that we can change the situation, and the situation will change when China gets wealthy enough, and we shouldn't be scared of China becoming wealthy and joining our ranks.
US could definitely do a better job of leading by example here while still fighting for a more level playing field.
I don't like the idea of trusting the executive branch to arbitrarily ban apps. Would much prefer a clear policy as to when and why actions are taken, and what policy changes could be done to avoid them altogether.
I don't like the idea of trusting the executive branch to arbitrarily ban apps. Would much prefer a clear policy as to when and why actions are taken, and what policy changes could be done to avoid them altogether.
Seems like you'd bring about the opposite though. In a cooperate-defect scenario, it only ends in the defector's win.
Free trade only works if it goes both ways. Otherwise you're just screwing yourself to benefit your now opponent.
Free trade only works if it goes both ways. Otherwise you're just screwing yourself to benefit your now opponent.
Is there benefit to setting an example that Chinese citizens would never see anyways?
believe me they see it, a couple years back you could ask Chinese people in the street what they thought of Americans and a lot would answer that they like the fact that they are more "free" and "open minded". There's a bunch of videos like that on youtube [1][2]. Nowadays I don't think people would say the same stuff[3].
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gqXLxCU-fY
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_E38TJpU6Q&t=451s
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOlu624glKw&t=432s
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gqXLxCU-fY
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_E38TJpU6Q&t=451s
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOlu624glKw&t=432s
it doesn't matter. chinese citizen opinion doesn't matter to the chinese govt. Western companies lose by trying to play fair against the chinese companies. This is all in accordance with game theory. By trying to be nice, we will be wiped out. The only choice we have now is to fight dirty like them.
You may be surprised to find out how much Chinese citizen opinions matter to the Chinese Govt. State-sponsored censorship (like the one in RPC) exists to meddle with public opinions. Denial of access to information is a mean, not an end. Artificial consents are being manufactured via the media on both sides. Just done differently, largely because one way is more cost-efficient and cost-effective than the other in terms of the place’s GPD per capital.
$10,262 [65th in the world] vs $65,111 [7th] (IMF, 2019)
$10,262 [65th in the world] vs $65,111 [7th] (IMF, 2019)
Regimes collapse due to their people’s will.
Is it banned just because, or maybe it's not following local laws?
China routinely blocks US websites without explanation. It's generally so that the government can have control over what communication happens over the internet.
https://techcrunch.com/2009/07/07/china-blocks-access-to-twi...
https://techcrunch.com/2009/07/07/china-blocks-access-to-twi...
Most US apps are banned in China to allow Chinese competitors to flourish.
If you think the American way is superior why are you so quick to throw it in the trash to adopt China's policies?
Or is it your view the American way deficient and we should learn from China?
Or is it your view the American way deficient and we should learn from China?
I think most people would agree that the American way is superior, but that doesn’t mean that it will work with parties unwilling to participate.
Luckily it’s only China that refuse to play by the rules, which means that you can easily remove them from the game without changing the game or adopting their policies.
Luckily it’s only China that refuse to play by the rules, which means that you can easily remove them from the game without changing the game or adopting their policies.
>I think most people would agree that the American way is superior
have you be experiencing the pandemic in America?
have you be experiencing the pandemic in America?
How’s this relevant when we’re talking about countries banning foreign (internet) companies from their market?
Besides, open markets are not exclusive to America, and plenty of open and democratic countries have done a far better job than China (who’re 100% responsible for the pandemic) with regard to the Wuhan Virus.
Besides, open markets are not exclusive to America, and plenty of open and democratic countries have done a far better job than China (who’re 100% responsible for the pandemic) with regard to the Wuhan Virus.
I'd love to have Chinese entrepreneurs have full access to the US markets and vice versa.
However, if the business environment becomes unfair I believe the other party has the right to push back.
I don't believe the US is going about it the best way, but I believe it has the right to push. Would much rather have clear and consistent policies as to when actions are taken and how to rectify.
However, if the business environment becomes unfair I believe the other party has the right to push back.
I don't believe the US is going about it the best way, but I believe it has the right to push. Would much rather have clear and consistent policies as to when actions are taken and how to rectify.
"You know all the data we give you from every person on the planet? TikTok does the same for China."
That probably scared them a bit.
That probably scared them a bit.
I strongly disagree that Zuckerberg is the mastermind behind taking out TikTok. A lot of this discussion was explicitly Chinese propaganda a few years ago egging on past presidents to ban a few foreign companies.
In my opinion Trump is driving this particular issue not at the behest of Zuckerberg. I dont think Trump sees eye to eye with other american social media companies. I think Trump just sees sensitive data about americans in foreign hands.
This EO action lacks complexity and is a somewhat, extremely messy way to do things. Trump's response does not react with the reality of the industry and that is all of our data is being scooped by everyone and banning a single company will do nothing. Hypothetically if he wanted to promote a culture change there needs to be more pointed discussion on this issue.
Additionally if Trump really really wanted to shove some regulation down data miners/brokers throats he would ban the sale of data (like ccpa but with actual teeth), and obliterate S.J.Res.34. GDPR is a farce and is like a cop making everything illegal but selectively enforcing the law.
This discussion on HN is somewhat helpful but few comments here are including the necessary complexity of this case.
In my opinion Trump is driving this particular issue not at the behest of Zuckerberg. I dont think Trump sees eye to eye with other american social media companies. I think Trump just sees sensitive data about americans in foreign hands.
This EO action lacks complexity and is a somewhat, extremely messy way to do things. Trump's response does not react with the reality of the industry and that is all of our data is being scooped by everyone and banning a single company will do nothing. Hypothetically if he wanted to promote a culture change there needs to be more pointed discussion on this issue.
Additionally if Trump really really wanted to shove some regulation down data miners/brokers throats he would ban the sale of data (like ccpa but with actual teeth), and obliterate S.J.Res.34. GDPR is a farce and is like a cop making everything illegal but selectively enforcing the law.
This discussion on HN is somewhat helpful but few comments here are including the necessary complexity of this case.
yikes
kenned3(3)
I wouldn't be surprised they paid for PR to put the heat on Cambridge Analytica. CA got burned bad for not breaking any US laws. FB got off mostly scot-free. If you make the competition look bad you will look less bad.
Huh? CA worked with Palantir. Both Facebook and Palantir are connected via board member Peter Thiel. They are in the same boat, no competition at all.
briandear(6)
I'm guessing Zuckerberg wasn't able to buy out TikTok, so went with plan b.
He actually tried to buy the precusor to TikTok in 2017, but did not go through with it because he didn't want to have to give data to the CCP.
Zuckerbergs brando is perceived by most people very negatively. People are itching to get away from it.
Wonder how long he disappears for this time. He is already reeling from the sunscreen fiasco.
Well, he got to eliminate competition and had a copycat tech ready in the wings. Typical business/cronyism move.
Sort of a Frankenstein’s monster situation Zuckerberg created for himself. He took Bytedance’s money so they could plaster TikTok ads all over Facebook and Instagram back in 2018.
TikTok pays its approved creators around $0.035 per 1,000 views. Maybe compete with that.
TikTok pays its approved creators around $0.035 per 1,000 views. Maybe compete with that.
Couldn't Facebook denying to accept TikTok ads be argued as constituting amticompetitive behaviour?
[deleted]
So a video with 100,000,000 views gets around $35,000? That seems low.
A few searches suggest YouTube pays at least an order of magnitude more, depending on geo and engagement.
A few searches suggest YouTube pays at least an order of magnitude more, depending on geo and engagement.
A better metric would be view minutes.
YT content length is very different. Also YT has substantially more drop offs than tiktok - it is lot harder to drop off in 15seconds .
Even if these were all equal bottom line is advertisers need to make money, i.e. how many people click on the ads and buy the product, some platforms just fundamentally have different demographics , App Store makes more money than Play Store for example, ads will be priced according to that.
YT content length is very different. Also YT has substantially more drop offs than tiktok - it is lot harder to drop off in 15seconds .
Even if these were all equal bottom line is advertisers need to make money, i.e. how many people click on the ads and buy the product, some platforms just fundamentally have different demographics , App Store makes more money than Play Store for example, ads will be priced according to that.
TikTok videos are a few seconds long, compared to YouTube's 10+ minutes (on average). Top creators can post 5-10 videos a day on TikTok and get 30-50 million views in a matter of hours, all with just a smartphone. The ROI easily beats YouTube, no comparison.
I dunno, I was just doing this math and thinking that seems pretty awesome.
You only get $35,000 but the hardware you need is in your pocket.
Of course, you need to be cool and be good at marketing- but still!
You only get $35,000 but the hardware you need is in your pocket.
Of course, you need to be cool and be good at marketing- but still!
I have this exact problem. In my niche, I am the best. Most people post their opinions, but I collect data and do math. It makes the content better than competitors.
However I don't have a marketing team, and I'm not a hip hot girl.
Don't get me wrong, the website is popular and I've been on BBC, but I can tell my lower quality competitors are doing better.
However I don't have a marketing team, and I'm not a hip hot girl.
Don't get me wrong, the website is popular and I've been on BBC, but I can tell my lower quality competitors are doing better.
Well, just look at this post right here: you've intentionally used an anonymous account and omitted any links to your excellent content. I bet your "lower quality competitors" would take the opportunity to link to their crap-ass content. ABC!
> However I don't have a marketing team, and I'm not a hip hot girl.
Why not hire a marketing team?
Why not hire a marketing team?
I tried 3 companies and they sucked, but I spent lots of money.
I think I don't have the cool factor.
I think I don't have the cool factor.
YouTube does pay an order of magnitude more per view, but the average YouTube video is two orders of magnitude longer than a TikTok video, so this compares very favourably to YouTube.
I believe your valuation discounts the persuasive storytelling value of the YT’s “longerish” content.
Not the greatest comparison, but YT : TikTok :: TV ad industry (2019-$70B) : Print Magazine (2019-$15B)
[0] https://www.marketingcharts.com/advertising-trends-108995
Not the greatest comparison, but YT : TikTok :: TV ad industry (2019-$70B) : Print Magazine (2019-$15B)
[0] https://www.marketingcharts.com/advertising-trends-108995
I'm just comparing the rates per view to the amount of time it takes to both make and consume content. That analysis results in the conclusion that TikTok is as or more profitable for content creators.
For high engagement and advertiser friendly content it is more like two orders of magnitude more (3.50 per 1,000) or $3.5 M for 100,000,000 views
Youtube videos are usually much longer. TikTok creators often make multiple views per day, while a youtube cadence of even 1 video per day usually requires a team.
[deleted]
You know something is broken when the CEO of Facebook chooses to apply himself to lobbying the government to ban his competitors instead of building a better product.
In fairness, though, the CEO of Facebook hasn't built a better product in almost two decades. Instead, his company's growth has been based on brilliant (and occasionally very shady) acquisitions.
Facebook Marketplace is better than Craigslist. Buyers have a history by default ("On Facebook since 2009" etc) which is nice.
It requires you to have a Facebook account. This by definition makes it an inferior product.
I've been buying and selling stuff on Craigslist for years, never had a problem. If you're really paranoid about getting ripped off, do the transaction in the parking lot of your local police station.
I've been buying and selling stuff on Craigslist for years, never had a problem. If you're really paranoid about getting ripped off, do the transaction in the parking lot of your local police station.
I'm moving out right now and using facebook to sell out my stuff, and let me tell you, you are missing out
Hi, I work for a global news agency AFP and I'm doing a story about people leaving San Francisco because of remote work/pandemic. Can I talk to you?
https://www.afp.com/en/news-hub
Sure thing, you can reach out to me through the contact page in my profile
There are always enough buyers and sellers on Craiglist and I never have a problem with the price. Unless FB is going to physically deliver the stuff from door to door for free, I'm not missing out on anything valuable compared to what I'd give up.
Don’t knock it til’ you try it
> This by definition makes it an inferior product.
Maybe to you, not to others?
Maybe to you, not to others?
Wouldn't be more interested in how active the user has been over the last year? I haven't used my account for years but signed up a long time ago.
You can easily buy Facebook account which have been old but might not have been active for a long time. To me being on Facebook since 2009 is not really a great indicator for trust.
You can easily buy Facebook account which have been old but might not have been active for a long time. To me being on Facebook since 2009 is not really a great indicator for trust.
And due to the current antitrust concerns, there’s no way FB could buy TikTok.
Brilliant ruthlessness brought us one of the most destructive tools on earth, disguised as a site for peace, love, cat content and happiness. There were a million different ways to design a communications tool for people that would have respected its users. I hope we will leave this decade with a sad, distant memory of facebook and its outlets.
BTW: I am sure we will see the end of facebook (and it's subsidies) in this decade. The power concentration is just too insane. If it does not implode itself, then even a weak government like the US will take action.
BTW: I am sure we will see the end of facebook (and it's subsidies) in this decade. The power concentration is just too insane. If it does not implode itself, then even a weak government like the US will take action.
>Brilliant ruthlessness brought us one of the most destructive tools on earth, disguised as a site for peace, love, cat content and happiness
Oh, good grief. Just say "Facebook didn't stop Trump from being elected!!!!1!!!1!". It would be fewer words.
Oh, good grief. Just say "Facebook didn't stop Trump from being elected!!!!1!!!1!". It would be fewer words.
There was nothing brilliant about buying two obviously successful apps: Instagram and WhatsApp.
I’m not here to defend Zuck, but those acquisitions only look obvious in hindsight. People thought Facebook was insane for paying a billion for a photo sharing app with a tiny team. And while WhatsApp was ubiquitous, it was very under the radar in the US until Facebook paid what seemed like an ungodly sum ($12bn) at the time. Instagram may go down in history as one of the greatest acquisitions of all time.
WhatsApp was quoted at $19B . You are right that those two were really smart acquisitions .
While WhatsApp has not really changed all that much since the acquisition, there is very little that is the same between Instagram pre Facebook and now.
Were they worth the 1B and 19B price tag? yes totally, however both could have been done cheaper and earlier. There was lots of discussions with snap before whatsApp. The way occulus($3B) due diligence was handled also does not show give a lot of confidence. Facebook just got their way with sheer amount of money they could spend.
While WhatsApp has not really changed all that much since the acquisition, there is very little that is the same between Instagram pre Facebook and now.
Were they worth the 1B and 19B price tag? yes totally, however both could have been done cheaper and earlier. There was lots of discussions with snap before whatsApp. The way occulus($3B) due diligence was handled also does not show give a lot of confidence. Facebook just got their way with sheer amount of money they could spend.
>...it was very under the radar in the US until Facebook paid what seemed like an ungodly sum ($12bn) at the time.
Facebook paid a lot more than 12 billion:
>...When Facebook announced its plans to acquire WhatsApp in February 2014, WhatsApp's founders attached a purchase price of $16 billion: $4 billion in cash and $12 billion remaining in Facebook shares. This price tag is dwarfed by the actual price Facebook paid: $21.8 billion, or $55 per user.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whats...
Facebook paid a lot more than 12 billion:
>...When Facebook announced its plans to acquire WhatsApp in February 2014, WhatsApp's founders attached a purchase price of $16 billion: $4 billion in cash and $12 billion remaining in Facebook shares. This price tag is dwarfed by the actual price Facebook paid: $21.8 billion, or $55 per user.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whats...
I won't speak to valuations because all of these values numb my brain a bit, but both Instagram and WhatsApp were obviously quite successful at the times of their acquisitions.
It didn't seem surprising at all at the time that Facebook bought both services, many people I knew were using them as much or more for social media than Facebook. Now, the values of course were a bit gawking but I'm sure experts crawled over a lot of their own internal figures and what they would expect out of both services. If any organization had enough social media data to evaluate these services marketability, it was FB.
It didn't seem surprising at all at the time that Facebook bought both services, many people I knew were using them as much or more for social media than Facebook. Now, the values of course were a bit gawking but I'm sure experts crawled over a lot of their own internal figures and what they would expect out of both services. If any organization had enough social media data to evaluate these services marketability, it was FB.
Everything about the Instagram acquisition was brilliant. Reminder that neither Instagram nor Facebook was making a profit at the time, and Instagram's $1B price tag was both very high at the time and minuscule in hindsight. 8 years later, Instagram is the platform that allows Facebook to still be mega successful.
If it was so obvious, why didn't Microsoft, Google or anyone else outbid them?
Facebook had a WhatsApp competitor with significant marketshare. It was $12 billion to buy WhatsApp or >$12 billion to crush the competition. In hindsight he made the right move.
Facebook's public-facing websites are not its product. Rather, the websites are a lure to attract people to be used as feedstock used by Facebook's actual business.
Facebook's actual product is its targeted advertising algorithms that advertisers pay handsomely to exploit. Facebook's advertising product has improved massively over the past two decades.
Indeed, Facebook's advertising algorithms are so good that Facebook should be regarded not as an advertising platform but rather as a rootkit and firmware upload tool for the human mind. Facebook's algorithms are quite capable of making a critical mass of the population believe utterly anything and, if if prompted, to act on those beliefs even in ways that go against their own interests.
What Facebook sells is the ability to control the course of society. That is their business, and they're doing very well with it.
Facebook's actual product is its targeted advertising algorithms that advertisers pay handsomely to exploit. Facebook's advertising product has improved massively over the past two decades.
Indeed, Facebook's advertising algorithms are so good that Facebook should be regarded not as an advertising platform but rather as a rootkit and firmware upload tool for the human mind. Facebook's algorithms are quite capable of making a critical mass of the population believe utterly anything and, if if prompted, to act on those beliefs even in ways that go against their own interests.
What Facebook sells is the ability to control the course of society. That is their business, and they're doing very well with it.
> What Facebook sells is the ability to control the course of society.
You were more on target when you praised the efficacy of FB's advertising products, bleepblorp. Unfortunately, FB doesn't offer any way to control the course of society except to hasten its decline by overwhelming users with crap.
Neil Postman anticipated this in 1985, when he explained that America had not succumbed to Orwell's dystopian 1984 vision, but rather, had become something more akin to Huxley's Brave New World:
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with indulgences, trifles, and vanities."
You were more on target when you praised the efficacy of FB's advertising products, bleepblorp. Unfortunately, FB doesn't offer any way to control the course of society except to hasten its decline by overwhelming users with crap.
Neil Postman anticipated this in 1985, when he explained that America had not succumbed to Orwell's dystopian 1984 vision, but rather, had become something more akin to Huxley's Brave New World:
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with indulgences, trifles, and vanities."
Let’s put things in proportion. Facebook took the place of television. Can it be effective in changing people’s minds? Yes, within a the scope of variability that they already have.
Can it turn religious people secular, Democrats into Republicans? Citation needed.
Can it turn religious people secular, Democrats into Republicans? Citation needed.
When Zuckerberg mentioned sometime last year, that he wants to make facebook better, and especially wants to make people happy [...] - just think about that. With kind of admits that it is facebook's mission to control your feelings - and no better feeling to convey this idea than happiness.
Which is what everybody wants, right? Large demand - big business.
Which is what everybody wants, right? Large demand - big business.
And it's pretty rich coming from a guy that's responsible for most kids on the internet thinking it's ok to use their real name.
kind of a classic traditional move no?
Zuckerberg is damaging Facebook reputation. I was approached by Facebook's recruitment team, but decided not to go ahead with it given the recent negative news around this company. I predict a slow decline for Facebook, like IBM, if Zuckerberg stays on as CEO.
I work at Facebook and we have a bi-yearly satisfaction survey. Trust in zuck's management is probably the highest metric, up there with agreeing with the global mission of the company (which is to connect people). I'd say he's one of the strong reason why people stay in the company even with the non-stopping bad news cycle. Don't think that what you see outside reflects what really happens inside. What I personally see inside: all of the issues that make the news are discussed openly, privacy issues are addressed on day one during bootcamp, and addressed weekly via trainings, zuck answering questions at the Q&A, communications, etc. What people tend to forget is that Facebook is a pretty large company, due to its scale, and it only takes a few fuck ups to end up with a bad news article. While I realize that we need the public scrutiny to keep ourselves honest, it also seems a bit disconnected from what is truly happening internally.
This is what I hear very often about Facebook:
Toxic culture. Poorly designed performance reviews that lead to a competitive environment and people working towards getting a better assessment, not building better products.
Regarding the high trust in Zuck's management, the grape vine suggests you won't last long at Facebook if you do not perceive Zuck as a semi God, so that might well be a self selecting bias.
Toxic culture. Poorly designed performance reviews that lead to a competitive environment and people working towards getting a better assessment, not building better products.
Regarding the high trust in Zuck's management, the grape vine suggests you won't last long at Facebook if you do not perceive Zuck as a semi God, so that might well be a self selecting bias.
Yeah, none of that matters. What matters is the harm FB is doing to the country.
Only companies that do shitty things need to have that much "training". Think about that.
Only companies that do shitty things need to have that much "training". Think about that.
I don't agree, and obviously a lot of people working for FB don't agree as well, but it is your right to think that what we're doing is shitty while ignoring all the upside and how the world has changed in a positive way through social networks.
What kind of ignorant and baseless comment is this? Adds nothing to the discussion, provides no data and yet states a 'fact', not unlike trump, attacking a company.
Did you know:
1) doctors
2) banks
3) professors
Three of the most important pillars of a country, have more training hours than a random tech company. How about you quit blabbing and go back to school and learn to form proper sentences. Think about that.
Paying top of market also helps
I hear this often, but honestly even with a low pay people don't leave their job unless they at their core disagree fundamentally with the ethics of the company, and I don't know many people at FB who disagree fundamentally with the company. Sure there are people who are not happy with some of the decisions the company take, and they argue openly or challenge management about that, but a company can't make everyone happy and I'm happy that they at least give us transparency and the opportunity to express ourselves and challenge them when we don't agree. In other companies you would probably get kicked out if you didn't show open support in whatever decision they take, and worse if you start talking politics.
Goosing elderly senators with another red scare sure was a convenient pivot from having to defend his own social network.
It’s difficult to know what to make of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal’s claim about Zuckerberg’s alleged claims about TikTok because I can’t read past the paywall.
But there are so many informed comments here on HN,I must be the only non-subscriber, yeah?
Can anyone post the article text?
But there are so many informed comments here on HN,I must be the only non-subscriber, yeah?
Can anyone post the article text?
Zuckerberg's alleged "message hammered behind the scenes in meetings with officials and lawmakers during the October trip and a separate visit to Washington weeks earlier" are sourced to "people familiar with the matter."
That's not journalism; it's gossip. Or worse.
That's not journalism; it's gossip. Or worse.
At least one quote acknowledges Zuckerberg's communications and is named:
Kelli Ford, a spokeswoman for Sen. Hawley said the senator’s concerns about TikTok predated the meeting with Mr. Zuckerberg. “Facebook has recently been sounding the alarm about China-based tech as a PR tactic to boost its own reputation,” she said.
Kelli Ford, a spokeswoman for Sen. Hawley said the senator’s concerns about TikTok predated the meeting with Mr. Zuckerberg. “Facebook has recently been sounding the alarm about China-based tech as a PR tactic to boost its own reputation,” she said.
[deleted]
Why the US should support chinese companies and not US companies, if Facebook did it under the law I'm fine
And they released Reels right when the executive order hits. Business and politics will forever go hand-in-hand.
Reality is that while China blocks Facebook, Google, etc and smartly props up their own clones, it’s “aghast” at the American protectionism and xenophobic behaviour.
How dare the Americans block a Chinese app?!
China is not a democracy. It’s not interested in fairness. China is playing the long game.
Just like the wars of the past were fought with little toy armies of a few thousand knights and noblemen marching into each other’s countries until someone decided to conscript their whole nation into battle, the West is fighting allowing China to pilfer its technology, wreak the environment, and compete with state backed organisations. Wanna compete with Huawei? Good luck sending in your company noblemen, China is sending their whole nation behind it.
There's a difference, facebook did not attempt to run its social media business in China, and Google voluntarily quit so it doesn't have to comply to censorship law. Meanwhile Tiktok has a US branch and is complying with laws in the US.
China has a restrictive internet where if you want to operate, you have to comply with a certain set of rules that are unsavory to say the least. Facebook, Google decided to not bother instead of complying to those rules, but they very well could have, Bing and Amazon is in China.
Tiktok's US branch did not violate any US law and its being prosecuted with administrative action, which is why your equivalence is false - The actual equivalence would be to make laws that enforces ownership for social media companies and make them store their content in location. And enforce those laws, like China did.
China has a restrictive internet where if you want to operate, you have to comply with a certain set of rules that are unsavory to say the least. Facebook, Google decided to not bother instead of complying to those rules, but they very well could have, Bing and Amazon is in China.
Tiktok's US branch did not violate any US law and its being prosecuted with administrative action, which is why your equivalence is false - The actual equivalence would be to make laws that enforces ownership for social media companies and make them store their content in location. And enforce those laws, like China did.
> facebook did not attempt to run its social media business in China
This is not true: https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17607992/facebook-allowed...
Facebook attempts to open an office in China, but gets shutdown one day later. Ofc, this is China so nobody knows the reason why.
Second, Chinese internet regulation is as opaque as its other operations, compliance with law is on the surface, they are tens of special government approved certificates to obtain if you want to actually operate there, like this one: https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E7%BD%91%E7%BB%9C%E8%A7%86%E5%..., which is approved case by case and notoriously hard to get, basically make it impossible for foreign company to operate in China.
So no, China's internet doesn't have only have a set of rules that once you comply you get a pass. It is mired in layers of regulations and bureaucracy that without guanxi, you can't crack it no matter how willing you are.
This is not true: https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17607992/facebook-allowed...
Facebook attempts to open an office in China, but gets shutdown one day later. Ofc, this is China so nobody knows the reason why.
Second, Chinese internet regulation is as opaque as its other operations, compliance with law is on the surface, they are tens of special government approved certificates to obtain if you want to actually operate there, like this one: https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E7%BD%91%E7%BB%9C%E8%A7%86%E5%..., which is approved case by case and notoriously hard to get, basically make it impossible for foreign company to operate in China.
So no, China's internet doesn't have only have a set of rules that once you comply you get a pass. It is mired in layers of regulations and bureaucracy that without guanxi, you can't crack it no matter how willing you are.
> Ofc, this is China so nobody knows the reason why.
I'd assume facebook know? Also your link does not seem related quote(Facebook opens a subsidiary in China, a breakthrough for the banned social media platform)
I'd assume facebook know? Also your link does not seem related quote(Facebook opens a subsidiary in China, a breakthrough for the banned social media platform)
There is the follow-up you requested:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/25/17612162/facebook-technol...
> The sudden rejection stems from a disagreement between Chinese authorities, the source told the Times. Local officials in Zhejiang, an eastern province that houses Alibaba’s headquarters, gave Facebook the initial permission, but the Cyberspace Administration of China, Beijing’s internet regulator, had not.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/25/17612162/facebook-technol...
> The sudden rejection stems from a disagreement between Chinese authorities, the source told the Times. Local officials in Zhejiang, an eastern province that houses Alibaba’s headquarters, gave Facebook the initial permission, but the Cyberspace Administration of China, Beijing’s internet regulator, had not.
I don't think you realize how impossible it is to enter the Chinese market... Google wasted a ton of money trying to enter the US market (I recommend watching this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImsSgdr4fg), and Facebook did too. Look at how it went for Uber.
If you want to give an example of a US company that is doing much better in China, it's Apple, and the sole reason is that everybody who works for the Chinese government owns an iPhone.
BTW I was living in China when Facebook got banned, it was in 2008 when it started becoming popular outside of the US. Nobody saw it coming, and obviously there was no way for Facebook to go back into that market once the CCP decided against that.
If you want to give an example of a US company that is doing much better in China, it's Apple, and the sole reason is that everybody who works for the Chinese government owns an iPhone.
BTW I was living in China when Facebook got banned, it was in 2008 when it started becoming popular outside of the US. Nobody saw it coming, and obviously there was no way for Facebook to go back into that market once the CCP decided against that.
> the sole reason is that everybody who works for the Chinese government owns an iPhone.
Not only that, a large portion of iPhones are manufactured in China, which sustains enormous supply chains and jobs there.
Not only that, a large portion of iPhones are manufactured in China, which sustains enormous supply chains and jobs there.
There's probably a way, register facebook.cn and allow censors to censor content, store everything in a data center somewhere in China, people has to use ID to register, etc.
At which point it doesn't make much sense to operate in China.
This is also precisely why TikTok is not available in mainland China, because it doesn't meet those standards.
At which point it doesn't make much sense to operate in China.
This is also precisely why TikTok is not available in mainland China, because it doesn't meet those standards.
tiktok is available in mainland China, it's called douyin
There are plenty of American companies that are doing fine in the China market. The automakers, Starbucks, even Disney does okay. Apple is doing alright, supposedly.
Tech companies don't do well because they tend to be staffed by people who 1. rebel against authority and 2. think that the liberal / anarchist parts of Western culture are the best way of doing things. What Uber did pissed off people in San Francisco, so it's small wonder the authorities would come down hard on them in China.
The word on the street is that people in China thought Googlers (and American software engineers by extension) were a tad insufferable and arrogant. One ought to be warned, that being arrogant is a surefire way to get people to beat you at any cost. And to be clear, I fit in that category myself.
At some point, I got off the high horse as far as China-this, China-that. Why? Partly because it didn't really seem important anymore, and partly because a lot of things that you can criticize China about, the U.S. has done as bad, and I don't like being hypocritical to that degree. You know what politicians like to do when things aren't so great? Point fingers at someone who's "worse." So really, in my view of things, FB and GOOG not succeeding in China would be a small price to pay for actually paying attention to things not right in the U.S.
Tech companies don't do well because they tend to be staffed by people who 1. rebel against authority and 2. think that the liberal / anarchist parts of Western culture are the best way of doing things. What Uber did pissed off people in San Francisco, so it's small wonder the authorities would come down hard on them in China.
The word on the street is that people in China thought Googlers (and American software engineers by extension) were a tad insufferable and arrogant. One ought to be warned, that being arrogant is a surefire way to get people to beat you at any cost. And to be clear, I fit in that category myself.
At some point, I got off the high horse as far as China-this, China-that. Why? Partly because it didn't really seem important anymore, and partly because a lot of things that you can criticize China about, the U.S. has done as bad, and I don't like being hypocritical to that degree. You know what politicians like to do when things aren't so great? Point fingers at someone who's "worse." So really, in my view of things, FB and GOOG not succeeding in China would be a small price to pay for actually paying attention to things not right in the U.S.
You are completely mistaken if you think simply complying with local laws will allow you to succeed in the Chinese market.
I don't think that, nor do I think that is true anywhere on this planet.
Parent’s keyword is “allow to succeed”, not “succeed”. I always warn people about false equivalence when it comes to China. The laws and rules in China are not the same concept as laws and rules in the West. There are implicit rules or 潜规则. The rules and laws are only there to make things look legit. There are very few places on earth where you can be forced into citizenship so you can be deprived of consular access and be dealt with using the convenience of Chinese rules and tools[1].
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sentences-bookseller-gui-...
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sentences-bookseller-gui-...
This is insane.
China abducts a Swedish citizen; recognizes and prosecutes him as citizen of China, denying Sweden access to the trial (note that China does not even have double citizenship); when concerns are raised over violations of Vienna treaty on consular relations—and hey, by this logic China can abduct anyone anywhere—China declares that (I am not joking) consular relations are on hold until COVID-19 is resolved.
How on Earth is anyone OK with this?
China abducts a Swedish citizen; recognizes and prosecutes him as citizen of China, denying Sweden access to the trial (note that China does not even have double citizenship); when concerns are raised over violations of Vienna treaty on consular relations—and hey, by this logic China can abduct anyone anywhere—China declares that (I am not joking) consular relations are on hold until COVID-19 is resolved.
How on Earth is anyone OK with this?
It's not like he is wholly unrelated to China, though. This is kinda similar to Davit Isak and probably numerous other people
I cannot locate anything about the person you refer to, but that doesn’t matter. “Not wholly unrelated” is a very weak justification for an abduction of a foreign citizen (especially where “not unrelated” means “wrote about some country’s politics”), and unilaterally declaring international consular relations “suspended”. “What about Y” does not mean X should be tolerated.
Sorry mate, that got misspelled. Yes, I agree with you an all those points, but to totally disregard the fact that the person is of chinese origin and a former chinese citizen is not giving the whole picture.
In the case of Isaak, people in sweden seem to think he was some kind of stockholm journalist when he was merely swabbing the floors of a swedish news agency. Not to discredit him of course, I was actually a cleaner myself at one point ... But to simply refer to him as an "abducted swedish journalist" very much leaves the full picture unpainted. More accurately he was a political refugee in sweden and oppositional activist in eritrea, and I think he wrote a newsletter there as well or some kind of newspaper.
In any case, hope they all go free soon, poor people.
In the case of Isaak, people in sweden seem to think he was some kind of stockholm journalist when he was merely swabbing the floors of a swedish news agency. Not to discredit him of course, I was actually a cleaner myself at one point ... But to simply refer to him as an "abducted swedish journalist" very much leaves the full picture unpainted. More accurately he was a political refugee in sweden and oppositional activist in eritrea, and I think he wrote a newsletter there as well or some kind of newspaper.
In any case, hope they all go free soon, poor people.
Abducted and prosecuted a Swedish citizen. The “journalist” part is not important is it?
A big difference between China and Eritrea is that one of those is a nuclear power, and it has just unilaterally declared consular relations as suspended when Sweden demanded access to its citizen. This is insane.
Global discourse about China mainland politics must be bias-corrected in a way that people with strong opinions and actual knowledge of how things work there will likely self-censor, unless they align with CCP.
If no one writes about some damning thing X in the US, there is a high likelihood that X doesn’t happen. If no one writes about damning thing Z in China, this tells us nothing. They could just fear for their lives—and it doesn’t matter where that person lives, which country’s citizen they are, whether they have been granted asylum, etc.
A big difference between China and Eritrea is that one of those is a nuclear power, and it has just unilaterally declared consular relations as suspended when Sweden demanded access to its citizen. This is insane.
Global discourse about China mainland politics must be bias-corrected in a way that people with strong opinions and actual knowledge of how things work there will likely self-censor, unless they align with CCP.
If no one writes about some damning thing X in the US, there is a high likelihood that X doesn’t happen. If no one writes about damning thing Z in China, this tells us nothing. They could just fear for their lives—and it doesn’t matter where that person lives, which country’s citizen they are, whether they have been granted asylum, etc.
Yep, as I thought… Two wrongs don’t make a right.
The demands China makes of foreign companies are obscene.
While any company's welfare can suffer when diplomatic relations between nations sour, as evidenced by TikTok, there really is no comparison between operating a business in China and operating in most other developed markets.
While any company's welfare can suffer when diplomatic relations between nations sour, as evidenced by TikTok, there really is no comparison between operating a business in China and operating in most other developed markets.
mate, I appreciate your comments personally as I've done business in 3 continents over last 15+ years and I can agree where you are going with this.
But you're not going to convince anyone on a western forum about this. Obviously I'm generalising but the process people have is loosely:
failure to understand how other people (ie 1.4 billion) operate -> their laws don't work like ours -> their laws are unfair and therefore must be corrupt
Of course they don't abstract the principles upwards ie that an important part of modern sense of liberty is letting people run the system they want. They feel there's no contradiction with that and trying to impose their system on others and using their own system as the only yardstick because they're saving these heathens from eternal damnation.
Alao a lot of those arguments I see in this thread could be applied to many other countries, but everyone just wants to blame China.
But you're not going to convince anyone on a western forum about this. Obviously I'm generalising but the process people have is loosely:
failure to understand how other people (ie 1.4 billion) operate -> their laws don't work like ours -> their laws are unfair and therefore must be corrupt
Of course they don't abstract the principles upwards ie that an important part of modern sense of liberty is letting people run the system they want. They feel there's no contradiction with that and trying to impose their system on others and using their own system as the only yardstick because they're saving these heathens from eternal damnation.
Alao a lot of those arguments I see in this thread could be applied to many other countries, but everyone just wants to blame China.
Aren’t there restrictions that the companies need to be 51% owned by local interests? And issues with IP transfer, etc.
Precisely, that's what I'm talking about, if you think the US should adopt the same restriction, maybe ask your representative to pass such a law then.
These restrictions are gone.
China changed their laws.
They have decreased in scope but they are not gone.
Citation? In all markets, or just in select non-essential ones?
Do you think it’s a coincidence Xiaomi keeps producing very good smartphones and other tech?
Do you think it's a coincidence that after iPhone 4 all smartphone looks more or less the same?
> facebook did not attempt to run its social media business in China
It actually did attempt to do that, pretty hard. Zuck even learned quite a bit of Mandarin Chinese and spoke in it in China to students during a publicity tour. He's not stupid, he knows there's a lot of money in China. But Xi is also not stupid, so he's not going to let a US media company to have unimpeded access to almost all of his subjects, which it could then algorithmically brainwash. So it was not to be. Google didn't "voluntarily quit" either. It quit because it discovered it's being spied on and had its IP stolen - both of those things are a fact of life for any significant Western company operating in China. So yea, forgive me for not shedding a tear for TikTok.
It actually did attempt to do that, pretty hard. Zuck even learned quite a bit of Mandarin Chinese and spoke in it in China to students during a publicity tour. He's not stupid, he knows there's a lot of money in China. But Xi is also not stupid, so he's not going to let a US media company to have unimpeded access to almost all of his subjects, which it could then algorithmically brainwash. So it was not to be. Google didn't "voluntarily quit" either. It quit because it discovered it's being spied on and had its IP stolen - both of those things are a fact of life for any significant Western company operating in China. So yea, forgive me for not shedding a tear for TikTok.
Yeah, the “certain set of rules” that many western companies have followed are sometimes no different in result than what is being asked of ByteDance.
It is fair to ask whether the US should be engaging in these tactics (I don’t think we should), but the suggestion that the US is doing something on a level that China wouldn’t is just false.
It is fair to ask whether the US should be engaging in these tactics (I don’t think we should), but the suggestion that the US is doing something on a level that China wouldn’t is just false.
> Tiktok's US branch did not violate any US law and its being prosecuted with administrative action
Seriously? That was already in 2019:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-pay-5-7-millio...
Seriously? That was already in 2019:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-pay-5-7-millio...
This case it's fine. There is a due process. Hard evidence is brought forth, court ruled in according to law. Where is the due process for handing the sentencing that prevents tiktok from transaction with US persons in the first EO. White House also gets to define transaction as whatever they want. Salary to US employees? App store listing? Ad transaction? White House can play tiktok however they please.
I get what you’re saying, it’s a very smart point of view. China has enacted absurd, oppressive laws which it interprets conveniently in favour of the party when it wants. However it wants to enjoy all the freedoms awarded to the rest of the western democratic and capitalist world, defended by their laws.
It’s the old communist adage: Socialism for other, private property for me.
> interprets conveniently in favour of the party when it wants.
When the laws are written in such away you don't have to interpret it. Western companies that follows those laws like locals are fine - e.g. Apple. Apple Store/Cloud in China store all their info in Guizhou and presumably with agreed access for government on demand, just like all local businesses.
When the laws are written in such away you don't have to interpret it. Western companies that follows those laws like locals are fine - e.g. Apple. Apple Store/Cloud in China store all their info in Guizhou and presumably with agreed access for government on demand, just like all local businesses.
This is pure disinformation.
I wonder under what circumstances this ban is acceptable. I'm no expert on international law, but even if the charges are Trumped up (pun intended), espionage / security concerns are very likely on the list.
Whatever your stance on if TikTok should be banned, it's concerning that the CEO of their largest competitor is able to dictate government policy to potentially remove them from the market. And Facebook is the only large tech player with this direct access to the Whitehouse.
The decision should be based on what's best for the US and for the market as a whole; not what's best for Facebook.
The decision should be based on what's best for the US and for the market as a whole; not what's best for Facebook.
> what's best for the US and for the market as a whole; not what's best for Facebook.
I'd say Facebooks view is the difference is only temporary, much like China's view on the world
I'd say Facebooks view is the difference is only temporary, much like China's view on the world
> "fairness"
The world is more complex than that. China is not "bad" because it is not a democracy. China is "bad" because it competes with the USA.
There are other countries that are not a democracy an that are allies with the USA, like Saudi Arabia. But they are "good", apparently.
And also, just remember that the USA only supports the democracies that are aligned with the way of thinking. Just do a bit of research and see what happened to South America in the 70s' and 80's... and more recently to Bolivia.
Also, most of the products that you use today were built, at least in part, in China.
The world is more complex than that. China is not "bad" because it is not a democracy. China is "bad" because it competes with the USA.
There are other countries that are not a democracy an that are allies with the USA, like Saudi Arabia. But they are "good", apparently.
And also, just remember that the USA only supports the democracies that are aligned with the way of thinking. Just do a bit of research and see what happened to South America in the 70s' and 80's... and more recently to Bolivia.
Also, most of the products that you use today were built, at least in part, in China.
> The world is more complex than that. China is not "bad" because it is not a democracy. China is "bad" because it competes with the USA.
China is bad because it is a horrific human rights abuser without democratic elections. You march to the beat of the CCP drum or you're removed. You're also severely disadvantaged if you aren't Han Chinese. The Uighurs are being systematically exterminated, and they're not the only ones that suffer.
The US isn't perfect. Our immigration laws and history of racism, sexism, and homophobia leave much to be desired. But we're not a dictatorship and we're a net force for good. I'd rather be a US citizen than a Chinese one.
Most of the world recognizes that China is becoming worrisomely powerful, and we've collectively decided that we need to put them back in check. Thankfully Xi is flexing all of China's muscles in an early show of strength, which has gotten the world's attention. Nobody wants totalitarian China to be the dominant superpower. Xi played his hand early, and now the walls are about to cave in.
As impressive as China's domestic capabilities look, they have an aging population with a huge gender imbalance that will bite them in a few short decades. If the world decouples manufacturing and supply chains from China over this same time period, China is going to have significant problems. They're not as self-sufficient as they look. They're an importer of energy and food, and without exports they won't be able to sustain their growth internally.
The world is trying to knee-cap China, and it makes sense.
China is bad because it is a horrific human rights abuser without democratic elections. You march to the beat of the CCP drum or you're removed. You're also severely disadvantaged if you aren't Han Chinese. The Uighurs are being systematically exterminated, and they're not the only ones that suffer.
The US isn't perfect. Our immigration laws and history of racism, sexism, and homophobia leave much to be desired. But we're not a dictatorship and we're a net force for good. I'd rather be a US citizen than a Chinese one.
Most of the world recognizes that China is becoming worrisomely powerful, and we've collectively decided that we need to put them back in check. Thankfully Xi is flexing all of China's muscles in an early show of strength, which has gotten the world's attention. Nobody wants totalitarian China to be the dominant superpower. Xi played his hand early, and now the walls are about to cave in.
As impressive as China's domestic capabilities look, they have an aging population with a huge gender imbalance that will bite them in a few short decades. If the world decouples manufacturing and supply chains from China over this same time period, China is going to have significant problems. They're not as self-sufficient as they look. They're an importer of energy and food, and without exports they won't be able to sustain their growth internally.
The world is trying to knee-cap China, and it makes sense.
it feels like you haven't really responded to the post you're replying to. the point they were making is that if that's what this was about, that standard would be enforced against saudi arabia as well.
It's probably because I agree with the OP's assessment, though they seemed impartial or critical of anti-China sentiment.
I happen to think what we are doing is justified and an imperative to maintaining our way of life.
I happen to think what we are doing is justified and an imperative to maintaining our way of life.
I think your American centric view gave you some blind spots
For once
>As impressive as China's domestic capabilities look, they have an aging population with a huge gender imbalance that will bite them in a few short decades.
Europe is in the same situation, it doesn't mean Europe will disappear
Japan is in a worse situation, but it's still the third economy in the World for GDP
> If the world decouples manufacturing and supply chains from China over this same time period, China is going to have significant problems.
You forgot (or you don't know) that China is practically colonizing Africa, which is gonna be the next big thing and has a lot of younger work force available, not considering that with 1.3 billion population is gonna be one of the largest markets in the World
USA has only 320 million citizen and only 80% of them are American born.
You also forgot that China is the United States' 3rd largest goods export market
It's also the third largest market for Apple devices.
China is also the largest supplier for USA, which means that on one side China get a lot of benefits trading on the US market, but also that USA without China goods is not gonna work the same way.
For once
>As impressive as China's domestic capabilities look, they have an aging population with a huge gender imbalance that will bite them in a few short decades.
Europe is in the same situation, it doesn't mean Europe will disappear
Japan is in a worse situation, but it's still the third economy in the World for GDP
> If the world decouples manufacturing and supply chains from China over this same time period, China is going to have significant problems.
You forgot (or you don't know) that China is practically colonizing Africa, which is gonna be the next big thing and has a lot of younger work force available, not considering that with 1.3 billion population is gonna be one of the largest markets in the World
USA has only 320 million citizen and only 80% of them are American born.
You also forgot that China is the United States' 3rd largest goods export market
It's also the third largest market for Apple devices.
China is also the largest supplier for USA, which means that on one side China get a lot of benefits trading on the US market, but also that USA without China goods is not gonna work the same way.
This seems like it could have been a copy-pasted block that is answered at comments with certain keywords (not that I think it is).
That is to say, it has very little to do with the arguments of the comment it replies to, or outright ignores them. It is good to engage people you reply to instead of talking at them.
That is to say, it has very little to do with the arguments of the comment it replies to, or outright ignores them. It is good to engage people you reply to instead of talking at them.
Such anti-China sentiments worry me because these are precisely the kinds of thinking (on both sides) that lead to over-generalisation and refusal to be in one another’s shoes.
Imagine 20 years from now Mars settlement has started to become reality. And most earthlings are still stuck at the primitive notions of dividing people and labeling things in overly generalised categories like the abstract notions of sovereign states.
I just hope when we have finally colonised Mars people who settle down in this otherworld are not as divided as we currently are.
Imagine 20 years from now Mars settlement has started to become reality. And most earthlings are still stuck at the primitive notions of dividing people and labeling things in overly generalised categories like the abstract notions of sovereign states.
I just hope when we have finally colonised Mars people who settle down in this otherworld are not as divided as we currently are.
No doubt martians will find other silly ways to divide themselves.
Domers rule, ok?
Tunnels Tunnels #1! #1!
We use sols.
They use mars seconds.
[deleted]
I don't understand if this has to be considered an answer to the previous post, it sound more like a reaction
But if
> China is bad because it is a horrific human rights abuser without democratic elections.
What about US where people have SIX times the chances of being shot and killed in the streets?
(1 every 100k VS 6 every 100k)
I mean: safety is a human right, especially in democratic western supposedly civilized countries
To find another country with such bad homicide stats you have to look at undeveloped countries run by criminal cartels or warlords
But if
> China is bad because it is a horrific human rights abuser without democratic elections.
What about US where people have SIX times the chances of being shot and killed in the streets?
(1 every 100k VS 6 every 100k)
I mean: safety is a human right, especially in democratic western supposedly civilized countries
To find another country with such bad homicide stats you have to look at undeveloped countries run by criminal cartels or warlords
BTW this is about Facebook.
Zuckerberg is just killing a competitor. This has nothing to do with freedom, it's about money.
Just like Epic vs Apple.
I don't care if China is aghast at American protectionism and xenophobia. I'm aghast, because as an American citizen, I'm interested in fairness and I hate protectionism and xenophobia, and that's what I think America is about.
If you're telling me that neither this nation nor any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure, and that we have to fight unfairness with unfairness, you're telling me that my loyalty to America itself is misplaced.
If you're telling me that neither this nation nor any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure, and that we have to fight unfairness with unfairness, you're telling me that my loyalty to America itself is misplaced.
At the end of the day the gleaming platitudes of Americanism (the stuff about fairness, equality etc) start to bump up against the reality of geopolitics. It's an unfair game, and pretending that China will eventually embrace what could colloquially be referred to as the Western approach to setting up markets like this is naive at best and dangerous at worst. It's not that your loyalty is misplaced, it's that I think you've misunderstood the game being played here.
Sure, so - what does the American approach have to recommend it? Why shouldn't I leave for China, the apparent winning team?
By all means, if that’s how you feel, you should explore that possibility.
Fairness, values, work on smaller scales. When you get to city/state/country scale, like Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, China, US do - it’s not a good strategy because your opponents/peers have no alternative but to deal with you, and unless you are going on an all out war, it’s mostly slap and tickle regardless of what you actually do.
Fairness, values, work on smaller scales. When you get to city/state/country scale, like Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, China, US do - it’s not a good strategy because your opponents/peers have no alternative but to deal with you, and unless you are going on an all out war, it’s mostly slap and tickle regardless of what you actually do.
This is a hard question, to be completely honest. Let me put it this way: I think that if the goal is maximizing the potential for accruing power and influence for your country, the Chinese system is probably better in the long run - especially in the post-post 9/11 world. The American system offers stronger fundamentals (no nasty fertility cliff in ~15 years, a strong but increasingly fractured understanding of global responsibility, a law system that still does protect political speech) but a less clear approach on how, exactly, the government is going to ensure this prosperity gravy train that we’ve been riding since the Soviet Union fell continues.
Not the parent you're responding to but the answer I see is that in the modern understanding of geopolitics (like 19th century and onwards), "fairness" and "values" aren't considerations at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
This is an active topic of discussion actually. In general the trinity of qualities that result in a "strong in the real way" country have been approached as realism, nationalism, and liberty. The scholarly community is currently in conflict because in the modern era one of these things is seemingly very unimportant compared to the others.
Previously, it was believed that liberty contributed to economic output for a myriad of reasons that boil down to "free markets". There's an emerging, albeit more romantically framed, belief that diversity and too much liberty are actually handicaps because both can retard a government's ability to engage in realist policy while, at the same time, deminishing the homoginizing effects of nationalism which has its own independent benefits but which also acts as a lubricant for realist action. This is not to say all assumptions and observations about liberal policies have been wrong, it's more about re-assessing our understanding about the magnitude and utility of these effects.
Previously, it was believed that liberty contributed to economic output for a myriad of reasons that boil down to "free markets". There's an emerging, albeit more romantically framed, belief that diversity and too much liberty are actually handicaps because both can retard a government's ability to engage in realist policy while, at the same time, deminishing the homoginizing effects of nationalism which has its own independent benefits but which also acts as a lubricant for realist action. This is not to say all assumptions and observations about liberal policies have been wrong, it's more about re-assessing our understanding about the magnitude and utility of these effects.
Please point me to some of this discussion. I'm very interested, especially if it relates to technology development and the requisite supply chains involved.
As an American business owner, in my experience reality has no concern for “fairness” but is constructed by leverage and power.
As an American business owner, do you believe in the rule of law or the rule by law? Do you think any appearance of shifting to the latter would have an impact on the business environment?
If I understand your argument correctly, my response is the same, that the "of law" or "by law" has no bearing and never has.
People/organizations/governments will do what they have the leverage and power to get away with. If you, or your organization, or your government, don't/doesn't agree with the direction, then leverage and power are your means to change the situation. Those that have the power to make/change the laws, make/change laws.
People/organizations/governments will do what they have the leverage and power to get away with. If you, or your organization, or your government, don't/doesn't agree with the direction, then leverage and power are your means to change the situation. Those that have the power to make/change the laws, make/change laws.
if you're interested in fairness, your loyalty probably is misplaced
On the global spectrum of fairness, the US is inarguably top-tier. The US is often compared to other western nations, not because they are so different, but because they are very similar. The top 15 or so countries are all neck and neck, but there’s a big wide field behind those ones.
Countries sent small armies into battle for good reason - until the industrial revolution sending 1m men into a foreign country would have involved the overwhelming majority of those men starving to death due to lack of supplies.
American values are way more important to the success of the U.S. than whether we have the #1 social media app in the world or whatever.
The U.S. rose to its current position by being a nation of values and principles--by sticking by them even through tough times, and encouraging their adoption elsewhere. That's the real long game. And right now we're losing it... actually no, this isn't something we can lose to someone else. We're forfeiting it. We're abandoning our best advantage.
We can't beat China by becoming China. And more to the point, China does not have to lose for the U.S. (or anyone else) to win.
The U.S. rose to its current position by being a nation of values and principles--by sticking by them even through tough times, and encouraging their adoption elsewhere. That's the real long game. And right now we're losing it... actually no, this isn't something we can lose to someone else. We're forfeiting it. We're abandoning our best advantage.
We can't beat China by becoming China. And more to the point, China does not have to lose for the U.S. (or anyone else) to win.
What does this have to do with Zuck?
My issue with this story (if it's indeed true) is that the motive for"stoking fears" was entirely self serving and has nothing to do with selflessly advising the government on some blind spot.
If you recall just a few years ago he was speaking at Chinese universities, getting photo ops in front of Tiananmen Square, and even asked Xi to name his unborn baby! He was all in on fawning over China when he thought there was a chance Facebook could "get in" and then took everything back as soon as he realized it was impossible.
My issue with this story (if it's indeed true) is that the motive for"stoking fears" was entirely self serving and has nothing to do with selflessly advising the government on some blind spot.
If you recall just a few years ago he was speaking at Chinese universities, getting photo ops in front of Tiananmen Square, and even asked Xi to name his unborn baby! He was all in on fawning over China when he thought there was a chance Facebook could "get in" and then took everything back as soon as he realized it was impossible.
So because China doesn't play fair the west doesn't play fair too?
So the west becomes like China?
Guess China wins because the have proven that the west isn't any better than them.
We fell into their trap.
"Turn the other cheek" sounds nice in grade school and self-help blogs, but you can't just let yourself get taken advantage of in order to maintain some arbitrary moral high ground.
It has nothing to do with moral high ground.
It's about being the better alternative and about and free markets.
But now everybody knows the US will play dirty to protect their it predominance.
The way the US acted against Huawei and TikTok showed what could happen to anybody who opposes the will of the US.
Even the EU now is looking for alternatives for the IT tech giants.
The trust is gone.
No, it shows that the US will no longer tolerate state subsidized corporations from supplanting other corporations trying to play by the rules.
Come on, the US an playing by the rules?
The used Echelon to help Boing winning a contract against Airbus.
The EU only stopped the investigation because 9/11 happend.
I don't really see how most of this is actually relevant to TikTok or all the drama surrounding it. The point of western societies is that certain things like art and speech are considered worthy of bestowing protections upon. TikTok is a platform that mixes speech and art and it's immensely popular with American youth who aren't allowed to advocate for themselves politically due to age. Why is it alright to block their access to a platform with these properties simply because it's politically convenient, especially when many of these same youths also use TikTok as a medium for artistic expression?
What China thinks about app blocking is irrelevant. The issue is about what fellow Americans, Europeans, and the rest of the western world think. Censoring apps is a massive departure from our own values, and compromising the values our society is built on just to race to the bottom with China will lead us to ruin. If black box content editorialization is a problem, let us push back market wide instead of picking on lone targets for being more overtly unaccountable.
Sociopath Zuckerberg found out how easy Trump is to manipulate. Things will get interesting from here on out. It might be in Mark's interest to ensure there is a compliant puppet in the White House for the next four years.
This is horseshit. The last thing fb wants is for nations to start banning each others technology companies. Tik tok being banned in India and USA could start a domino effect that see's fb being kicked out of many countries that follow.
How exactly is this "horseshit"?
In a private dinner at the White House in late October, Mr. Zuckerberg made the case to President Trump that the rise of Chinese internet companies threatens American business, and should be a bigger concern than reining in Facebook, some of the people said.
Mr. Zuckerberg discussed TikTok specifically in meetings with several senators, according to people familiar with the meetings. In late October, Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.)—who met with Mr. Zuckerberg in September—and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) wrote a letter to intelligence officials demanding an inquiry into TikTok. The government began a national-security review of the company soon after, and by the spring, Mr. Trump began threatening to ban the app entirely. This month he signed an executive order demanding that TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance Ltd., divest itself of its U.S. operations.this doesn't seem to indicate that Zuckeberg said that the reaction should be to ban these apps.
This discussion has been interesting. This article is newer than the top frontpage post with more points and more comments. Why is its ranking sinking so fast?