[ad_1]
In a new opinion piece for the New York TimesColumbia University law professor Tim Wu, a strong proponent of the free and open Internet, writes an interesting defense of President Trump’s ban on Chinese TikTok and WeChat apps in the United States. Although he called Trump a “bad character to lead this fight,” Wu argues that the threatened bans are “a late response, a tit for tat, in a long battle for the soul of the Internet.” It’s an interesting counterpoint to the myriad of valid questions that have been raised about the ban, and it’s worth reading.
Wu’s central argument is that China has banned TikTok and WeChat competitors like YouTube and WhatsApp for years. Foreign companies are effectively prevented from competing fully and independently in the Chinese market, while Chinese services like TikTok have been able to freely exploit Western markets. As Wu argues:
Asymmetry is unfair and should no longer be tolerated. The privilege of full Internet access – the open Internet – should only be extended to companies in countries which themselves respect this openness.
So far, the United States has largely favored a neutral internet, in the hope that this open approach will eventually spur China to do the same. Instead, China has succeeded in “using the Internet to suppress any emerging political opposition and relentlessly promote its ruling party.” Wu argues that the United States’ attempt to maintain high moral standards and give Chinese companies free access to Western online markets has made it a “sucker.”
Some believe it is a tragic mistake on the part of the United States to violate the principles of openness of the Internet that have been developed in that country. But there is also a thing like being a sucker. If China refuses to follow the rules of the open Internet, why continue to give it access to Internet markets around the world?
There are valid criticisms to be made against the US ban on TikTok. Last week, my colleague Russell Brandom called it a “blatant abuse of power,” pointing to the lack of public evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of TikTok, or how the ban appears to have circumvented political processes. normal. And that’s not to mention the frankly bizarre calls for money to be allocated to the US Treasury in case Microsoft ends up buying out the company’s US operations.
Wu does not support Trump’s methods or motives, but rather argues that the West needs to take a more active role in promoting its version of the Internet to be successful, rather than sit back and hope the rest. people will come back.
We need to wake up to the game we are playing regarding the future of the global internet. The idealists of the 1990s and early 2000s believed that building a universal network, a kind of digital cosmopolitanism, would lead to global peace and harmony. Nobody buys this fantasy anymore.
Wu’s counter-argument is interesting and worth reading.
[ad_2]
Source link