>> Because US/western social media has same market access to PRC
I do not believe that the preferred platforms of the CCP, owned and operated by the same people, would not be favored in China. There is no open or transparent lobbying in China. Rather, overnight, someone from the CCP can decide that your platform should be shut down and your employees harassed, arrested and/or prosecuted. Yes, the market is huge, but why would any western company take that chance. For all its flaws, the US doesn't have these issues to this level. The TikTok debate is happening relatively slowly and a lot of it in the open (So our politicians can showboat, but still). TikTok also has access to the best lawyers, lobbyists, as well as grounds for appeal. Those in power will also be politically assailed by their opponents on behalf of those under 35 for shutting down their favored platform. People could conceivably lose office for the decision.
>> Forward to today, somehow TikTok operating in US while compliant to US laws managed outcompeted US platforms.
No argument here - TikTok has done amazing and has played by the rules (though if you have pile of nearly infinite money from a powerful government, you can do a lot). I'd argue that realpolitik, is alive and well, always has been and always will be. TikTok can both influence (which I'm less worried about thanks to the other avenues of free speech) but TikTok can also collect and retain the moral and legal trespass of the young for decades to then use it as blackmail when they are the ones seeking positions of power. You could argue the same for all the other socials, and I think their data retention is what should really be limited, but they are at least within the confines of a legal system, that yes, has flaws, but is open enough.
I'm not naive enough to believe the US is devoid of corruption, backroom deals, people whose rights are denied or trampled on etc. But compared to the CCP's framework, there is no debate.
Personally, I think TikTok has a first amendment right to exist regardless of who owns it. It's the data retention that really worries me, and unless you count data as property (which I could be convinced of), there is not right to data retention.
> realpolitik, is alive and well
...
> compared to the CCP's framework, there is no debate
Really the crux of issue for me. By all means ban TikTok, Huawei, constrain PRC chips, but let's chalk it up to sensible realpolitik than narrative over morals/frameworks. Like CIA basically bribed their way to control promotions throughout CCP throughout 90s-00s, hence Xi crackdwon on foreign NGOs, and dismantled PRC CIA networks. If US fears that's a risk vector for tiktok, and US society laws too open/fragile to handle even JV configurations like in PRC, then sensible people should accept that to ban TikTok, US has to adopt harsher methods than even PRC.
> would not be favored in China
I specifically highlighted PRC _would_ have tip scales towards domestic incumbents. Like US is doing now against TikTok. But PRC didn't have to do much, western platforms never really got localization right, Google stole Sogou pinyin so input didn't suck, Youtube never broke top10 streaming, Amazon was unimpressive relative to other ecommerce. PRC companies that focused solely on domestic market outcompeted western platforms where PRC sideshow. Then exported Tiktok that flourished in US because it's fashioned after Douyin style feel good content due to survivorship bias of PRC censorship.
> would any western company take that chance
Ask the 10,000s western companies that operate in PRC fine for 30+ years. Or why is twitter in India despite indian gov threatening to arrest employees? Or why western platforms in Vietnam cede to VCP censorship requests. Many have grown enough to have no scruples working with "shady" governments now. Hence me highlighting western platforms during 00s-10s had SV pride/optics/ethos considerations of the time that made today's routine acquiescing to foreign security interests unlikely then. As for why take that chance, because PRC still large market that was worth friction cost, until geopolitics made it not.
> US doesn't have these issues to this level
IMO functionally it does, all the lobbying and connections in the world isn't going to overcome interests of motivated national security state. US domestic sentiment has little effect on actual foreign / security policy. US had to ram through CHIPs act / October "surprise" without much industry consultation / ability to disrupt because ultimately US just comparably as capable as PRC in terms of overnight responses. Dressing it up with demographic process theatre isn't particularly convincing considering how many strategic industries US is home too, industries like in PRC that exist because state was precient enough to keep competition out/down.
>> Because US/western social media has same market access to PRC
I do not believe that the preferred platforms of the CCP, owned and operated by the same people, would not be favored in China. There is no open or transparent lobbying in China. Rather, overnight, someone from the CCP can decide that your platform should be shut down and your employees harassed, arrested and/or prosecuted. Yes, the market is huge, but why would any western company take that chance. For all its flaws, the US doesn't have these issues to this level. The TikTok debate is happening relatively slowly and a lot of it in the open (So our politicians can showboat, but still). TikTok also has access to the best lawyers, lobbyists, as well as grounds for appeal. Those in power will also be politically assailed by their opponents on behalf of those under 35 for shutting down their favored platform. People could conceivably lose office for the decision.
>> Forward to today, somehow TikTok operating in US while compliant to US laws managed outcompeted US platforms.
No argument here - TikTok has done amazing and has played by the rules (though if you have pile of nearly infinite money from a powerful government, you can do a lot). I'd argue that realpolitik, is alive and well, always has been and always will be. TikTok can both influence (which I'm less worried about thanks to the other avenues of free speech) but TikTok can also collect and retain the moral and legal trespass of the young for decades to then use it as blackmail when they are the ones seeking positions of power. You could argue the same for all the other socials, and I think their data retention is what should really be limited, but they are at least within the confines of a legal system, that yes, has flaws, but is open enough.
I'm not naive enough to believe the US is devoid of corruption, backroom deals, people whose rights are denied or trampled on etc. But compared to the CCP's framework, there is no debate.
Personally, I think TikTok has a first amendment right to exist regardless of who owns it. It's the data retention that really worries me, and unless you count data as property (which I could be convinced of), there is not right to data retention.