This is a cost of liberty, as is disagreeable speech, anti-government literature, etc. Opponents of those have long cried "we're getting abused" to stifle such things.
One hopes your attitude towards reciprocity stops at software. "we should treat Chinese [NOUN] the exact same way that China treats American [NOUN]" is a scary Mad Lib.
I think we should spell out our trade policies and not have them be at the whim of the executive branch to do whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like, while trying to extort a cut of the profits.
Not sure I agree with this. Intolerance of intolerance is a hallmark of a tolerant society, and we see it everywhere with bans against inciteful speech — if we're to use that example.
If China and other governments are intolerant of our content, code, and signals, why should we be tolerant of theirs?
Then why did was offshoring to an intolerant regime was seen as legitimate since the 90s? Only when it started to hurt a few deep american pockets was this talk about intolerant regime became an issue.
This is a misapplication of Popper's tolerance paradox. You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals".
We-Chat and TikTok are without argument tools of an oppressive regime and therefore constitute intolerance one needs not tolerate, both conceptually and as products.
Is the USA the right regime to morally champion this cause? It the real reason for these bans even remotely associated with this moral objective? I'll leave that up to the reader.
But: with what's happening at the behest of the people who ultimately and directly control the censorship and data of these applications, there is no further difficulty in applying "intolerance to intolerance" in this case.
> You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals".
Took me a few reads to understand your point of contention, but I'm pretty sure I described it accurately. Their intolerance of our products over whatever concerns they have justifies our intolerance of their products for the same.
> Not sure I agree with this. Intolerance of intolerance is a hallmark of a tolerant society, and we see it everywhere with bans against inciteful speech — if we're to use that example.
The same can be applied to software and algorithms. These cannot be allowed to perpetuate evil practices in the name of liberty.[1] I don't see a problem when apps doing that get banned. Though I do understand that people will differ on how to do that.
Also - WeChat is a legit threat even outside the bounds of security.
Game Theory:
'True Free Trade' - everyone gets 10 points
'All Borders Closed' - everyone gets 0 points
'One side opens, one side closed' - the closed side gets 20 points, the open side 5
Somewhat like a prisoner's dilemma.
Finally - there is hardly an argument to be made with 'open' or 'freedom' on platforms that are completely controlled, censored, used as tools of suppression and authoritarianism.
One hopes your attitude towards reciprocity stops at software. "we should treat Chinese [NOUN] the exact same way that China treats American [NOUN]" is a scary Mad Lib.