What is the leading example of the US banning consumers from owning a product unless you invest? This isn't just banning someone from selling, this is asking you to report your neighbor if you see them owning an iPhone.
There are many examples, but the most famous is TikTok. They had to either sell part of their company [to an American company] or be banned in the US. They didn't sell so now they're being banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_...
Much more common than an outright ban is simply egregious tariffs. (Which didn't do anything to stave off foreign competition or increase local competition, but it did line our pockets)
You are still leaving out that using TikTok still won't be illegal in the USA, it won't be blocked either, just that TikTok won't be able to do businesses in the US (i.e. sell ads), or having other companies do business with it (so no app on the iPhone).
It is not like the states are going to block TikTok with a GFW that doesn't exist. Of course, the inability for TikTok to make money in the USA is going to be a huge hit that the company probably can't get out of.
Are they proposing to arrest people who have TikTok on their phone and encouraging you snitch to the police of you see people using tiktok? what Indonesia is doing is on a completely different level.
That’s not what the US does. The US has bigger infrastructure, and typically more pull in the financial sphere. They’ll usually seize funds directly if they really need to, and they have, or pressure governments in numerous other ways.
Different ballgame altogether
The only real exceptions have been chips and electronics from China particularly regarding wireless infrastructure and computing.
The US fears Chinese military and economic capability. TikTok cannot invest its way out; there is a smell of conflict in the air. TikTok selling or leaving is the same as leaving or leaving.
“The US fears Chinese military capability” is one of the funniest things I’ve read in ages.
There’s a limit to how capable the leadership of a military can be without any real world experience aside from harassing the ships and aircraft of other nations with dangerous interception maneuvers.
But ICBMs don't do anything besides launch nukes. The parent comment has a point - China can "harass" the United States with their materiel across thousands of miles of seawater, but America generally doesn't care. There is no Chinese threat to American airspace when both countries are thousands of miles away from each other. The Pacific ocean itself is so large that preemptive long-range shipping attacks are considered to be technologically impossible too.
And I'll even go a further step to argue that China copied the United States' nuclear scheme to be deterrent rather than aggressive. Their ICBMs are clustered in uninhabited lands in the northwest of the country, forcing potential aggressors to either nuke China's nukes or strike fast enough that China can't respond. The goal of China's nuclear program, it would seem, is not to enable a panoply of tactical effects like the US or USSR, but just to remind the world not to attack their soil.
The US has the pull to make foreing companies not sell their products to countries sanctioned by the US.
TSMC can't sell a lot of products to China, neither ASML.
You can't fly to Cuba directly from the US, neither can import their Cigars.
Venezuela, Iran and Russia along other's can't access their international reserves deposited in American Banks.
It is just a different scale and for completely different reasons. If anything, other countries are learning to play by the same playbook for their particular reasons.
US sanctions are basically an illegal scheme. They're not supported by any kind of foreign law or treaty, unless such a sanction has been agreed by the UN. In general, the US just takes that out their own *ss and shove into other peoples throat. No wonder other countries are banding together to avoid these criminal practices altogether.
If something has to be approved by the UN it will never happen. Especially any action against Russia.
The UN secretary-general was recently bowing to Putin at the BRICS get together. Putin has an ICC arrest warrant issued for the invasion of Ukraine. I believe the UN endorses the ICC, at least it used to.
> If something has to be approved by the UN it will never happen
Include there any action against Israel for killing thousands of children and starving millions, and against the US for supplying these weapons. Prosecutors in the international war crimes court asked for Netaniahoo to be arrested for crimes against humanity.
So, the United States can invade Iraq, completely fuck Lybia, promote brutal dictatorships across latin america that tortured and killed thousands because of some vague idea that this is required to satisfy US security concerns in countries thousands of miles across the globe.
But at the same time, after the US promoted a state coup in Ukraine because its government was not interested on severing ties with Russia, after the US and NATO trained and provided the Ukrainian army and hinted at NATO expansion, after the US admitted that Minsky accords, Russia somehow is not entitled to have their security concerns and they should just accept American encroachment, the subversion of their internal politics via american financed NGOs (just like they do in a fucking lot of countries).
I find it amazing that most people still believe USG bullshit. The same fucking government that had no qualms on fucking their citizens with projects like MK Ultra, the same fucking government that was caught spying on its own citizens and jailed the whistleblower who brought this to their attention. A government that via its think tanks never made a secret of their intentions on regime change in Russia to enable the pillage of its natural resources: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Russia somehow is not entitled to have their security concerns
And Russia's "security concerns" had nothing to do with current conflict. That's the language of the bully, and you're eating it up.
That, and the other word salad you've been dropping here ("American encroachment", "subversion via NGOs") suggests you've been reading from some highly propagandized sources.
It is a mirror of the language used by the US who claims that anything happening in the other side of the world is a national security threat. So, even if it is deceiving language, it is justified by how the world currently works.
So, even if it is deceiving language, it is justified by how the world currently works.
Which is basically like saying "the world is amoral, so everything is justified".
So forget "justified". The point is that it's obviously deceptive, manipulative language.
And so when we hear it being used on us -- it's time to start thinking about who is doing the manipulation, and why.
More to the point, the whole argument being made here is completely absurd, from the very get-go: "The US did X bad, Y bad. We don't like that. So therefore when Russia does Z bad, we should start treating it with empathy in regard to its security concerns, and all the awful things that the US did to not provoke it, thereby actually causing it to do Z".
The US-based system is the modern version of a religion. They promote their interests based on abstract "values", so you have to believe in these values to be a good person (whatever they're promoting as good), and believe that the US gov is the leader in pursuing these values, just like the Catholic Church proclaimed during the middle ages. If you accept these illogical premisses, other governments are necessarily against democracy and freedom, and therefore have no reason to exist and need to be destroyed from within or from outside if needed. To be clear, the main problem in Western ideology is not the values themselves, but the idea that they're the best and other countries that don't support them need to be conquered or destroyed. It is barbarism by other means.
taking this morally relativistic position to its logical conclusion, should the preeminent military power intervene with force to stop a country genociding its own people within its own borders, for example? how about intervening without force to stop the institutionalized subservience of women, through political meddling?
> What is the leading example of the US banning consumers from owning a product unless you invest?
DJI, Chinese electric cars/phones, mass-produced solar and battery tech and firearms manufactured abroad to name a few. All of which are being considered for bans under the pretense that they're not domestic enough to trust and import.
Indonesia is right to take a strong approach here; Apple is a documented tax dodger in the EU and would have likely ignored lesser action.
> DJI, Chinese electric cars/phones, mass-produced solar and battery tech and firearms manufactured abroad to name a few. All of which are being considered for bans under the pretense that they're not domestic enough to trust and import.
Consumers can own all these things without fear of being reported. I work with an official DJI reseller and I automate DJI gear for government. What is the leading example of the US banning consumers from owning a product unless you invest?
US is crazy rich and powerful Country that has plenty of tools to pressure companies to do what they want. Indonesia is a poor ass country that has to resort to cheap tricks like this one.
> DJI, Chinese electric cars/phones, mass-produced solar and battery tech and firearms manufactured abroad to name a few.
In the US, if such a thing already is in the country, you can continue to use it as a private citizen or as a company (unless it involves anything government owned). And at least for now, you can buy any DJI drone you want in the US, there's more than enough firearms imports from places such as Germany or Austria [1], no one gives a fuck where your solar panels and batteries come from (other than import duties). Cars just as well, once the car is in the US you can drive utter junk on the streets as long as it is somewhat road legal in the state it is registered in.
This ban in Indonesia however affects everyone, no matter how or when they acquired their iPhones:
> Agus Gumiwang Kartasasmita, the country’s Industry Minister, declared that any iPhone 16 found in the hands of consumers will be deemed illegal.
That's not an example of the US banning a company for not investing into the US.
USG is banning (only passed House) [1] DJI because Chinese law requires DJI to hand over data and USG is not a fan. This may be a bit like calling the kettle black because of various US laws but again it's not an example of the US banning a company for not investing.
I don’t understand why the US doesn’t have a data sovereignty law as a requisite for doing business here. If you sell to Americans the data needs to be specifically live only in US data centers and no where else, and access must be based on US soil.
A few Europeans countries have this, or something like it, if I recall correctly
