But the CCP wants to have their cake and eat it too. Fully repressive social media lock downs and censorship for their citizens but exploiting the west’s values of free speech and debate.
But the CCP wants to have their cake and eat it too. Fully repressive social media lock downs and censorship for their citizens but exploiting the west’s values of free speech and debate.
It's also that people within China can't access the foreign websites and apps (without using a VPN), because China's Internet firewall blocks that access! That's what makes it an incontrovertible ban!
Even if a company has no interest in operating as a business within China in the first place, China may still block the websites and apps. That's a ban no matter how you slice it.
Meanwhile TikTok has worked very hard to work with authorities in the US for pretty much any of their demands.
I don't support any of these bans but I don't think its fair to equate these.
No, they don't.
You think all these sites refused to provide Chinese authorities with legit information? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
What exactly do you think Wikipedia did that was so wrong? Or Voice of America -- that's an American propaganda outlet sure, but I can get to Xinhua (Chinese state media) as an American easily enough, so why not the other way?
In any case, refusing to provide info on domestic terrorists could be a legit case for bannning a company from operating within your country...but what does that have to do with banning everyone residing in your country from being able to access the foreign versions of those websites on foreign servers?
The simple reality is that China is extremely ban-happy when it comes to foreign websites and apps, even for companies that have never tried to operate their business from within China.
That would be like saying that an Israeli publisher should not be allowed to publish in the US because US publishers cannot publish holocaust denial books in Israel. Or saying that a UAE restaurant should not be allowed to operate in the US because the UAE doesn't Wendy's there to serve the Baconator.
The sensible rule is that X should allow companies from Y to operate in X subject to the same rules that domestic X companies must follow if Y allows X companies to operate in Y if they follow the same rules as domestic Y companies.
The logic of PRC defenders never ceases to amaze.