European countries are free to take whatever actions they see fit against US companies.
China is an authoritarian state and it's respect for the individual rights of people is nowhere near that of the US.
China is an authoritarian state and it's respect for the individual rights of people is nowhere near that of the US.
You can see this in action with most EU countries disagreeing with many sanctions imposed on US enemies but eventually caving under pressure from the US. Or when having to switch the frequencies used for the Galileo system to something that could be more easily jammed by the US.
The US is exhibiting towards other countries the same kind of tyrannical behavior bent on maintaining power that the Chinese leadership is exercising towards its citizens. It's the age old need to maintain power, and the more power, the further you're willing to go to maintain it. From a global surveillance exercise where every human is spied on relentlessly, to meddling into most countries internal affairs to the point of changing regimes to suit them, to oppressing their own citizens. These are all publicly and officially documented issues. It's all great if and only if your interests align.
If you cannot acknowledge this then you are certainly not prepared to have a discussion beyond "we're good, they're bad".
Europe with GDPR does set its own rules for how American tech can operate and penalizes them heavily for perceived infractions. So that continent is taking the actions they want to take which is their right. Beyond that, there are more examples: Spain did effectively shut down Google News, and I don't remember any retaliation.
On the other hand the examples you gave are absolutely minor and barely noteworthy. I referred decisions with global impact, not inconsequential things like Google News being affected in Spain. Intel never payed the fine the EU imposed for unfair practices close to a decade ago. Facebook and Google barely saw a blip due to GDPR since it was basically (and legally it seems) rolled into their ToS.
The real consequential things are the public support the US demands from the EU for sanctions or wars. For political and economical issues that involve far more than you mentioned as a counterpoint. For countless human lives lost.
Even more with how our soon to be ex-president pardons convicted war criminals on a whim.
For example the US is guilty of criminal negligence during the invasion of Iraq, when an important part of the historical heritage of the entire humanity has been destroyed.
It would have been extremely easy to avoid that, and there were ample efforts to warn the US political and military leaders to take appropriate actions, but all the warnings from competent people were ignored.
A common thief or vandal who destroys one picture from a museum might rot in jail, but US presidents or generals who have destroyed historical artifacts far more valuable will never be punished in any way.
I always think of this phrase whenever questions of freedom come up.
And like you mention, all of us our free, but mostly our liberty is curtailed by external circumstances or by our own fears of retaliation.
They can also threaten economic and political retaliation. That's international politics and negotiation and diplomacy in a nutshell. It's a dirty game but the rules have been known for centuries. Europe isn't some tiny South American nation, it's a global power whose GDP rivals the US. That it's failed to successfully do this is the fault of Europe and no one else.
Europe has failed to protect itself against US power and now you seem to be upset that the US wants to not fall into the same trap in terms of China?
> They can also threaten economic and political retaliation.
Sure but threats and negotiations work if you actually have the bigger gun and leverage. Given that the US is both the largest economy and military power this feels like a moot point.
> Europe has failed to protect itself against US power
Yes, just like Chinese citizens failed to protect themselves against their leadership. They aren't just a tiny South American nation, they are 1.3bn people who want freedom. That they failed to successfully do this is the fault of the people and no one else.
But really, the fact the EU stood quietly next to the US while the US tightened its grip on the world is indeed a failure of the EU (Europe, given that this started happening long before the EU). They took the easy road of growing in someone else's shade, even if post WW2 it may have been the best or only thing Europe could have done. This doesn't change anything about my characterization of the US, it's just a tangent.
I'm not saying what China is doing is ok because the US does it too. But just like OP, I pointed out the double standards obvious even here on HN. Whether it's mis- or dis-information, ignorance, hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, or whatever else you may call it, the fact that people hold 2 completely different and opposing opinions on the same kind of action differentiated only by "us vs. them" is a massive failure of those people.
China's growing influence and Russia's influence on international politics clearly show that it's not about absolute power but how you apply it. Europe is large enough and powerful enough that the US can't invade it or cause massive economic damage without significantly hurting itself. Europe has massive leverage in negotiations and politics and diplomacy. It just fails to use it likely because it's not unified enough to fully and quickly apply it.
Please stop blaming Europe's diplomatic failures on external factors. All that does is ensure that they will continue to happen because you won't blame the government that is actually at fault.
> Please stop blaming Europe's diplomatic failures on external factors
After I clearly stated this:
>> But really, the fact the EU stood quietly next to the US while the US tightened its grip on the world is indeed a failure of the EU [...] They took the easy road of growing in someone else's shade
Is a sign that you did not bother to read, let alone understand my comment. That is terribly disrespectful and a sign that you have no interest in a discussion, just a monologue of meritless opinions.
The EU only appeared in the discussion as a reference or "witness", just like the Chinese people are used as reference for what their leadership is doing. You turning the discussion towards some EU blame for whatever isn't only a meritless distraction from the topic, it's also akin to blaming the Chinese people for not overthrowing the CCP. They are 1.3bn people, surely they have "massive leverage".
I reiterate, you have no interest in reading or understanding any of my comments. The extent to which you perverted and rewrote my words just to fit whatever narrative you're more easily able to support really makes for low quality discussion. I have more than adequately made and supported my point and will politely withdraw.
Is there evidence that a significant portion of the population really do want more freedom? While I would hope so it's possible the majority there prefer the status quo. (Of course lack of evidence doesn't prove it.)
If you look at history, the US exercises about as much control of Western Europe as Rome did. Basically the areas were free to run their daily affairs but military matters went through Rome. Similar to now.
The fiction lasted well throughout the Cold War but is starting to fray. It will be interesting to see what happens going forward.
Go ahead and say that the US does bad things. But, regardless of that, we should still retaliate against China for doing bad things to us.
And you bringing up even more bad things that the US has done is not relevant at all, to how we should definitely still stop China from doing bad things.
> we should still retaliate against China [...] we should definitely still stop China from doing bad things
You can retaliate. Should implies an obligation. Since the narrative (yours included) is that you're punishing actions ("bad things") not nationality, not following up with retaliating against your own leadership for the same "bad things" or worse means having exactly that misguided Messiah complex (misguided because you don't understand the purpose of your own country's actions) as well as holding a healthy dose of double standards or hypocrisy. You live in a democracy, this is your will. The unspoken desire to enjoy and exert dominance, followed by the inevitable rationalization that gives it a morally acceptable varnish.
As I said in my original comment on this thread:
> If you cannot acknowledge this then you are certainly not prepared to have a discussion beyond "we're good, they're bad".
That is a weird phasing. By "should" I mean that it is a good thing to call out bad things that happen, such as in this case with these apps, and I am happy when the US retaliates against bad things, such as what is happening in this example. The reason being, that these apps are doing bad things that should be stopped. You have not contradicted this point.
> established they're bad
In this specific case though, regarding these app and the actions that they are taking, they are bad though!
> You live in a democracy, this is your will.
Ok. And bad things being punished in this specific example. Thats good. And misdirection to talk about something different does not overrule the fact that it is good in this specific example that these specific bad things are being punished/retaliated against.
> gives it a morally acceptable varnish.
Specifically in this example, it is morally accepted to punish these specific bad things that these apps are doing though. So there are no problem with retaliating against these apps and actions, because in this example they are indeed bad and should be retaliated against.
- The US has at least a two party system. It’s not much, and is deeply flawed, but at least the governmental power is not completely unchecked. That and the government is ostensibly at the mercy of the people. Propaganda, disinformation, and manipulation aside, if a government does something egregious enough the people of the US still have the power to vote them out. The Chinese people do not have that power. Their government is much more top down and prescriptive. The only checking of power is the willingness of lower level people to enforce rules.
- Freedom of Speech. Nobody is above criticism. Simple as that. Not being able to question the government is an awful situation to be in. Imagine a world where you could get extradited to China for saying something critical of the CCP online. I’ll remind you that the CCP jailed 8 doctors in Wuhan last year for raising the alarm about the coronavirus, saying they were spreading false rumours online. No thanks.
- From an ideological standpoint the CCP seems to be be hellbent on reclaiming lost territory and retaliating against the evil west who have wronged them for so long. The US has no such motivation, being relatively young.
Please don’t get me wrong. I think China is a beautiful country, having visited several times, and the Chinese people and culture are both wonderful. I just do not want to live in a CCP-centric world.
And the EU does. But ironically whenever that happens Americans argue that such action isn't about privacy but instead about the EU trying to promote their own domestic industries.
Though I guess that same spin would likely be argued by those on the receiving end of the US/China ban too.
International politics isn't fair or just or honest. However that's been known since probably before written history. So of course the US will spin things with propaganda and false statements and whatever. You can't change it or impact it or do stop it directly. So blame Europe for not successfully countering it rather than the US for knowing how to play the game.
Says the bully.
Can this be applied to any situation where one party found itself (through error, inaction, incompetence, inability, etc.) in a position to be dominated or abused by anther party? Or is it only selectively applied based on personal preference or inclination? Because applying it selectively is exactly the double standards people (myself included) highlighted in this thread.
This may be pragmatic but it's also vicious towards the losing party. Politicians or corporations bribing or abusing power to get away with anything know how to play the game. The people being abused or losing everything are to blame for not successfully countering them.
Double standards are a good way to justify anything to your advantage by simply flipping the argument the way it suits you. As I wrote in a previous comment, it makes for exceptionally low quality conversation.
edit: This is the only view I see that allows the losing entity to learn from the experience and avoid it in the future. Any other view just results in the same thing happening again in the future.
The expected "relativistic" cop-out. "Massive" means nothing if your opponent has substantially more. It simply means that no matter how much you want to escalate they can take it a notch higher and you will suffer just a bit more than your opponent. There are examples literally all around you.
> This is the only view I see that allows the losing entity to learn from the experience
The only way? It is a way best used when everything else has failed, like education. Am I to understand that you learned everything from personal experience? If you truly believe things are only ever learned on your own skin then you understand close to nothing about the world, history, and consequences, not living through almost any of them yourself. Which explains the narrow view.
Any chance that it's just protectionism against Chinese companies (Huawei, Ali)?