points | by bastawhiz a year ago ago

2 comments

  • danielscrubs a year ago ago

    Force to sell it, and the owners should be in US or something like this can happen again. The state then has data access.

    I get what you mean but it is just splitting hairs at this point.

    • bastawhiz a year ago ago

      > The state then has data access.

      The state already has data access, if the data is in the US. If the data isn't in the US, then why don't we have data locality laws like the EU and India? If the data is already in another country then why do we let another state have access to the data of US citizens?

      > How can people trust that we are an innovative hub if this is how we operate?

      Because it puts them on the exact same situation as every US company. You can call it splitting hairs, but they already have a US entity that's already subject to US laws and orders. The US's ability to access their data doesn't change (unless they've been storing user data in mainland China, which is kind of damning for them). Forcing divestment doesn't give the US any legal leverage.

      And if companies are worried they'll become worth billions of dollars and become popular with every American youth and have a bespoke act of Congress force one of their many owners to divest, frankly I think they've got their priorities in the wrong place.