Assume, for the sake of argument, that all of the bad things the govt asserts about China are true, do we want to give unilateral authority to the govt to destroy companies? What does that portend for US companies operating in foreign jurisdictions?https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/02/pompeo-says-u-s-may-take-action-against-tiktok-and-other-chinese-tech-companies-shortly/ …
-
-
Replying to @skupor @kimmaicutler
A company is just a structure. US companies are distinct from the military apparatus. Chinese companies are not. We have due process, they do not It sounds like your perspective on what a Chinese “company” is, is skewed by your understanding of the US / EU corporation
2 replies 1 retweet 18 likes -
Replying to @justindross @skupor
I think you’re talking past each other? We know there’s not really true separation in China. However, this also gives every other country precedent to ban U.S. companies. Think EU banning FB or Google, further splitting the web.
7 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @skupor
So 1) I think the precedent was set by China (Uber / Didi most recently) and this is tit for tat and 2) I do believe that split web is somewhat inevitable, just EU has been incompetent in building viable alternatives and just keeps fining/regulating US tech instead
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @justindross @skupor
Are you suggesting that we duplicate the practices of an authoritarian country because they did it to us first?
5 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @skupor
I have to imagine you understand the difference between what I’m suggesting and what you just said. They don’t allow us to participate in their market, so we should not let them participate in ours. And, worse, this is a latent military and propaganda tool.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
The US has been extraordinarily patient toward China's uniquely predatory trade practices for a very long time. This time it's different because it's not only about trade, though that is an important piece to it too, it's also about natl security & the values the US stands for.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @jacobhelberg @justindross and
Tik Tok is a subsidiary of a company believed to have assisted the world's second largest economy to identify Uighur women of child-bearing age to send them to concentration camps on trains & forcibly mass sterilize them. This is genocide. US should have absolutely no part in it.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @jacobhelberg @justindross and
For more on the genocide piece, lots has been written but a good analysis includes:https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/15/uighur-genocide-xinjiang-china-surveillance-sterilization/ …
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Kim-Mai Cutler Retweeted Kim-Mai Cutler
I’ve been talking about TikTok as a national security risk for almost a year and a half so we’re really not disagreeing on that point. https://twitter.com/kimmaicutler/status/1126911453066190849?s=21 … What I want to know is what method of addressing it does not set a concerning precedent for global & US businesses?
Kim-Mai Cutler added,
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
That’s fair. We already have an established system of duly passed laws for handling these risks. That system entrusts executive authority in the Prez— I worry forcing the Prez to get approval from Congress every time similar risks arise would make us exceptionally ineffective.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jacobhelberg @kimmaicutler
And I wonder whether the underlying source people’s concern stems more from their distrust of the person piloting the system (Trump) than for the system itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.