Of course it’s better when we do it to ourselves than when an outsider does it. It’s rational for a country to prevent its main adversary from collecting massive amounts of data on its people and to prevent its adversary from getting people addicted to an app that has negative social consequences. After banning TikTok people will naturally start to wonder about regulating Facebook and other social media and this would be a good thing.
Europe's main adversary and existential threat ain't no China, its russia. Has been, is and probably always will be. Next, at least historically, with a huge gap from first, would be Turkey. We are not top dog and thus don't compete with China in any way apart from usual economical stuff.
I bet this move is more to please US to show we are still aligned, otherwise we would be banning all meta products and couple more left and right.
Russia is a minor player compared to China, a distraction that was welcomed by China with open arms as it helps divide and weaken the West. I understand that Russia has a much bigger impact on Europe than on the US, but strategically speaking, China is the only one actually capable of influencing the world to embrace despotism and collectivism at the expense of freedom.
Minor player from US perspective maybe since both are geographically far from you, but russia keeps consistently threatening to nuke all European cities (last time they told we need to expect 250 million casualties), they wage war that top russian leadership repeatedly stated ends when they reach Atlantic ocean. This won't and shouldn't be ignored.
Now we all know at this point what relationship russia has generally with truth, but for imminent threat (next few decades), we worry at murderers on our doorstep and stating openly they want to enslave and kill us, rather than something remote that may be a problem in few decades, maybe. Imminent military/existential threat > economical competition, always. China ain't exporting despotism, I am not aware of a single country falling into this category. russia on the other hand, almost 100 years of consistent achievements in that space.
This also comes from past and quite recent experience - eastern part of Europe was enslaved by soviets/russia for 4 decades. I've grown up in one such place, its destroyed for generations, and its not something I'll ever forgive them. China? Nothing.
You just can't compare these threats. Sure we are aligned with US as much as we can, but US acts in its own priorities, which sometimes are directly against our own. US spies on us, wages trade wars with us. US has Trump. And US is currently giving a gigantic FU with blocking help to Ukraine, we all know and see daily consequences, and we all know Europe's security from Russia ain't top US priority now. So lets be a bit honest here.
> Russia is a minor player compared to China, a distraction that was welcomed by China with open arms as it helps divide and weaken the West.
How does that follow? The war united the west, not divide it.
> China is the only one actually capable of influencing the world to embrace despotism and collectivism at the expense of freedom.
You mean china is the one forcing collectivism ( EU ) on europe? What is 'the west' other than collectivism?
So many stupid people watching stupid youtube videos and regurgitating nonsense. You probably have a brain. Try using it sometimes.
The most despotic entities in the world isn't china, it's the US and the EU. The most collectivist entities it the world isn't china, it's 'the west'.
Is china forcing everyone to be like them? Are they exporting communism everywhere? No. Guess who is trying to force everyone to be like them? The west.
EU and Russian economies are not liked in significant ways anymore. Russia was the number one natural gas supplier but has kicked itself off that position with the invasion of Ukraine.
Meanwhile the EU exports massive amounts of goods and intellectual property into China. China is also controlling the vast majority of rare earth supply. If China were to cut ties with the EU, the EU economy would tank massively.
China is also known to supply Russia with chips for their weapon systems, which means they work together in defense matters and if Russia is a threat, then China is, too.
I agree that more regulatory effort is needed against Meta and YouTube, but at least there we have actual entities in our sphere of influence that our democratic systems can hold accountable.
Anything China however, we are reliant on the goodwill of a dictatorship. And that cannot stand longer, especially as China is not giving us reciprocal access - Youtube and Facebook for example are banned there, so it is only fair to do the same against anything Chinese.
China is an adversary to Europe. You may not see it as the main one but it is one. Don’t have to always target the main adversary.
European security is dependent on American guarantees and as such it is in Europe’s interest to not deviate too far from America’s foreign policy goals. Especially when there is a major war going on in Europe caused by its main rival.
Even so Europe has targeted America’s most powerful corporations for regulation. This is a good thing. Maybe America will someday follow Europe’s example.
It may be now, but not because of China, but because of the disastrous policies of the EU commission that cannibalized its own industrial base.
> European security is dependent on American guarantees
It is now, because De Gaulle and Adenauer were under massive attack by the Atlanticists when they tried to establish a sovereign European security infrastructure. The CIA, the BND and the Spiegel actually were instrumental to that.
The crazy thing is that America would be far more powerful if it empowered its allies rather than cannibalizing them.
It doesn’t matter why Europe is dependent on American guarantees when we are discussing the state of the world as it is now. Perhaps the information you’ve provided would be helpful in developing a long term goal of non-dependence on the U.S. military.
Russians lost 1 in 7 men to defeat nazis i.e. to save Europe from Europe.
From a historical point of view, it is the other way around. Germans, French and the English always had a hard on for the slavs. They desperately wanted those resource rich, strategically located lands. They still do.
It does not matter what happened historically. We are talking about what is happening now. The Baltics, Poland, Romania, etc. see Russia as a threat and not their NATO allies.
But the nations I mentioned see Russia as a threat and not their NATO allies. This is what we are discussing. What does it matter that some people hold grudges for a long time when that isn’t pertinent to the discussion at hand?
Right now, Poland, the Baltics and Romania fear Russian agression and are very much opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This is the present reality and that at some point in the past other nations were more feared than Russia is of no consequence on the present reality.
Russia is a personalist dictatorship. It's actions are at the whims of it's dictator. It does not matter what actually happened historically to understand the present reality. What does matter is how one person views history and how that influences his decisions. But this only matters as it pertains to predicting his reactions/actions.
For instance if Putin beleives that the U.S. is the cause of all that is wrong in Europe then it doesn't matter if he is right/wrong. What matters is that he believes this and acts on this belief. Knowing his view of history is important but it in no way has any bearing on wether or not nations fear Russia at this moment in time.
Germany initiated two world wars and was responsible for the deaths of millions, including systematic extermination of 6 million jewish civilians. Yet, they are somehow the good guys now leading the EU. If Russia is bad because its parent USSR was an oppressive regime, what of Germany?
Russia is not considered bad right now because in the past it was bad. It’s considered bad right now because of invading neighboring countries and that it is also Europe’s last true colonial empire. Germany was bad. Now not so much.
United States invaded Iraq (under false pretext of WMDs) and Libya and currently illegally occupies parts of Syria. Doesn't that make it a colonial empire?
Russia could argue that it has legitimate national security interests with Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.
I find the recent reflexive hatred of Russia puzzling. They are no worse than their accuser.
Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, etc. are examples of Russian aggression. The U.S. is an empire and is neo-colonial. It has done outrageously bad things. Supporting Ukraine is not one of them. Russia is led by an evil man. There are other evil people in the world.
Could you please elaborate on Moldova? I am russian, and I am sincerely curious, what does it look like from your point of view. What exactly were russian actions that you classify as an aggression?
Tansnistra (spelling?). Read up on it. Russia is Europe's last traditional colonial power. It's dictator seeks, to the extent possible, to recreate the Russian sphere of influence enjoyed during Soviet times.
Actually USSR president didn't recognized Transnistria as an independent state. Even more he "declared the Transnistria proclamation to be devoid of a legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on 22 December 1990" as Wikipedia says. And still today Russia didn't do that also. So what were the acts of the aggression made by Russians against Moldova? You wrote Moldova first in the row like something obvious and I'm really interested in the basis of this statement.
Germany has changed the way it treats its neighbors and has become a trustworthy and reliable partner who seeks to solve disagreements through peaceful means. You don't see military parades under Swastikas, people voting Hitler their biggest hero, or German leaders threatening the rest of Europe that "the masters will be back" and discussing on TV how many million people in Poland should be exterminated - all of which is happening in Russia.
They have been integral part of the NATO military alliance that bombed Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, lending military bases and participating in missions. Hardly solving through "peaceful means". It is just that they are on the "right side".
The bombing campaign of former Yugoslavia lasted for 10 weeks and stopped a series of civil wars that had gone on for 10 years and claimed at least 130 000 lives. The whole campaign killed a few hundred people, less than were executed in a few days in some of the worst massacres there, and brought peace that has lasted for 25 years and counting. So indeed they were on the right side.
> The Uprising started when the Red Army appeared on the city's doorstep, and the Poles in Warsaw were counting on Soviet front capturing or forwarding beyond the city in a matter of days. This basic scenario of an uprising against the Germans, launched a few days before the arrival of Allied forces, played out successfully in a number of European capitals, such as Paris and Prague. However, despite easy capture of area south-east of Warsaw barely 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) from the city centre and holding these positions for about 40 days, the Soviets did not extend any effective aid to the resistance within Warsaw.
In 1939 there were 111 million people in today's Russian territory, in 1946 - only 97. So literally, yes, every 7th Russian was killed fighting nazis.
By the end of 1939, there was no such state - Poland. There was the Polish nation, but there was no Polish state that exercises its power within its borders. There were Soviet Union and Germany and border between them. And after the end of WWII, Poland was restored. Not just restored, but got about 20% of its current territory from Germany. Only Red army from all the Allies was present and won the battles on this territory. Would you restore a neighbour state and gift it yesterday's German territory filled with the blood of only your soldiers if you just want to conquer it?
To complete the picture Poland was also pretty happy with aiding the Nazis, together invading Czechoslovakia two years before that. Until the Nazis turned against them.
Soviets, not russians. The Soviet forces consisted of people from fifteen present day countries, only one of which was russia. More non-russians were lost than russians
Considering how many millions of people the Soviet Union murdered in its own nation (before and after WWII), and the nation's of other non-Soviet European nations being invaded anexed.."to save Europe from Europe" would be a statement that many, many Europeans may not agree with.
And yet, Germany leads the Europe now. I believe there is no need to recount the horrors they were responsible for, in their own country and other European countries. I don't think what USSR did to their own people is far worse than what Germany did to 6 million jewish people, enough to treat Germany better than the Russians, who in fact suffered at the hands of the Bolsheviks.
> After banning TikTok people will naturally start to wonder about regulating Facebook and other social media and this would be a good thing.
It's not 'people' demanding anything. It's the elites. Why would the elites want to ban facebook or any social media they control. Not to mention facebook, reddit, youtube, etc are much older than tiktok.
If Tiktok gets banned perhaps people (non elites) will start wondering about regulating other social media. It’s a desire on my part that this occurs. I’m not stating that it will occur or has occurred.
What L? I clarified my meaning because someone interpreted what I wrote in a way that I did not intend. I think it is common to clarify when appropriate.
except that you're essentially endorsing a dangerous form of nationalism and rationalizing domestic surveillance by suggesting it's acceptable for our own government and companies to manipulate and monitor us but not for foreign entities, to say nothing about how naive it is to think domestic companies will later come around to regulating themselves. this is exactly the double standard that not only undermines the principles of fairness and privacy but also paves the way for greater acceptance of intrusive surveillance under the guise of security.....
You should reread what I wrote. In particular, how does my last sentence,
After banning TikTok people will naturally start to wonder about regulating Facebook and other social media and this would be a good thing.
give the impression that I for the things you claim I’m for? You did not understand what was written.
It is human nature to find that some actions done by your own society are more acceptable than when done by another society. The CIA drugging Americans is a lot more palatable to Americans than if Chinese spy agencies did that. Neither is good but one garners much less outrage than the other. This was my point. And by regulation obviously I was referring to government regulation.
