rob53

svanstrom said:

avon b7 said:

svanstrom said:

avon b7 said:

svanstrom said:

avon b7 said:

I can't see this as anything other than an abuse of government powers.

It used to be that sovereign nations were aware of limitations on the sale of US products to third parties before purchase.

I think that's a reasonable approach to applying restrictions but changing the rules at short notice for doubtful reasons and in the concealed name of protectionism but claiming national security concerns AFTER the sale, well that can only end badly because countries and companies will only see the US as an unreliable entity willing to do anything to get its way. In that scenario, the US will find itself in isolation as the world shuns its products. 

We've seen this with Huawei and now with Tik Tok. If WeChat is affected too, it won't be long before Tim Cook is dining at the White House to try and drive a message into Trump's head. 

Get off that pedestal on that horse of yours; even the worst of what that racist orange might do is still less than what Winnie Xi has been doing all the time with that great firewall of his.

People can't react before they react, so any argument of yours along the lines of "but it was ok yesterday" is pretty much null and moot.

I think you missed the point. 

China can do what it likes with its laws over its own sovereign territory. Just like the US. 

However, the US has now moved to an extraterritorial mode and is attempting to apply 'sanctions' on its opponents by restricting what companies in sovereign nations can do with their products, simply because even a small part of them use US technology.

That will not end well for the US because it makes itself an unreliable partner. The worst kind in fact. 

It has set a precedent. The world is taking notice (not least China!) and will look for more reliable partners. 

No one is going to invest billions in a product only to see potential sales wiped out simply because somewhere along the line some tiny percentage of US technology was used. 

That's even without getting into the efforts of the US to stop ASML (no US tech incolced) from doing business with Chinese operations. That is far, far worse. 

You have just discovered the fun world of sanctions and embargos and all that… It's "normal", it's how the world works at an international level.

These are not sanctions in the true sense. This is completely different and the US will pay a price. 

That should be evident to any onlooker. So evident that the Pentagon pushed back against this kind of measure (ironically in the name of national security). US business is also pushing back and you can expect Tim Cook to board that train at lightning speed if Apple has to remove WeChat from its Chinese App Store. 

I added "and that" as a general inclusion, because if you aren't familiar with the basics I can't really write a whole wikipedia article about it for you; nor hold your hand taking your through your personal ideas of the "true sense" of how the world should be.

You may not like it, but stuff like this keeps happening all the time. It happens at political levels, international courts, trade organisations, and about a gazillion other types of deals and contracts and whatnot.

randominternetperson said:

Huh, I reread Article II of the Constitution and I couldn't find which executive power would allow this.  The closest thing is the tail end of Article II Section 3 that says "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."  I wonder what law asked the President to mandate artificial deadlines for foreign companies to change their (legal) business practices.