US moves to force ByteDance to sell TikTok(semafor.com)
semafor.com
US moves to force ByteDance to sell TikTok
https://www.semafor.com/article/04/23/2024/us-senate-moves-to-force-bytedance-to-sell-tiktok
76 comments
ByteDance aren't going to give up the juicy algorithm in the deal though, apparently.
It's like buying KFC without the secret recipe.
I love TikTok. After HN, it's the place where I get most of my tech news.
It's like buying KFC without the secret recipe.
I love TikTok. After HN, it's the place where I get most of my tech news.
Tiktok probably will move out of US market then
US market is great to have, but there is still the rest of the world too
US market is great to have, but there is still the rest of the world too
>Tiktok probably will move out of US market then
When the Trump administration came close to forcing a divestment/shutdown on TikTok in 2020,^1 Americans were 10% of TikTok's user base but 50% of revenue. Of the top 50 most-followed accounts <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_TikTok_a...>, 21 of 50 are American.
^1 And boy, do Democrats who shouted Orange Man Bad back then now wish they had supported the move
When the Trump administration came close to forcing a divestment/shutdown on TikTok in 2020,^1 Americans were 10% of TikTok's user base but 50% of revenue. Of the top 50 most-followed accounts <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_TikTok_a...>, 21 of 50 are American.
^1 And boy, do Democrats who shouted Orange Man Bad back then now wish they had supported the move
Yeah I’m sure it hurts Bytedance if they lose the US market, which is why they broadcasted the call to action to US Tiktokers before.
But that’s life, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
But that’s life, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
That doesn‘t really make sense financially. It would be more reasonable to sell.
How does owning a company and making money, just not in one country, not make sense vs. not owning a company and letting other people make money?
They can keep the company, just not in the US. Furthermore it really depends on the price. If I make an annual profit x that is expected to grow to y eventually, then I would certainly sell you that company for 100 * y. Maybe even 10 * y.
Wait so if Bytedance divested… there can be two Tiktoks? Tiktok US and Tiktok world?
That‘s my understanding.
The good American content would be gone, which is a large part of it making money.
This is getting the most extreme social mind control tool mankind has ever created out of the hands of a government that did Tianemen Square and is doing the Uygers right now. A government who controls all under its purview with an iron fist, and shares absolutely zero common interests with any young person in the west.
The resistance to it on this forum, of all places, is kind of incredible.
The resistance to it on this forum, of all places, is kind of incredible.
[deleted]
Into the hands of another gov doing (funding) genocide and oppression just the same.
This is all a case of “Corp can’t compete? Lobby to ban.”
This is bog standard capitalism.
This is all a case of “Corp can’t compete? Lobby to ban.”
This is bog standard capitalism.
Just looking at numbers of the effected populations - Ughyers vs (I assume you mean) Palestinians - that's absolute disinformation hogwash.
For bonus points, disinformation hogwash that helps one of the most un-progressive governments in the world (China) extend it's power.
For bonus points, disinformation hogwash that helps one of the most un-progressive governments in the world (China) extend it's power.
Even if they sell it (or "sell" it) wouldn't it remain a "security risk" as it probably has government agents working as programmers (even more than other big tech)?
If they could control what kind of information can be spread in TikTok, I believe they don't care about whether the user data is leaking or not.
How would this actually work? How would the US force a Chinese company to sell? What if they didn't?
How would TikTok collect ad revenue if it‘s illegal in the US?
Furthermore, a US judge could presumably just order to take down their DNS globally. Furthermore they can presumably compel Apple and Google to remove the app from the store.
Furthermore, a US judge could presumably just order to take down their DNS globally. Furthermore they can presumably compel Apple and Google to remove the app from the store.
What would stop them from publishing an APK to download?
Nothing, but they couldn't monetize the eyeballs. So they would just be bleeding money for no reason.
The easy way would be to just have Google and Apple remove the app for new downloads for US users. With normal device replacement cycles, the friction of acquiring apps from non-App Store sources, and the friction of using an Apple/Google account that isn't from your primary country, this would bring usage to effectively zero within a few years.
No need to bother with actual technical "blocking" measures.
No need to bother with actual technical "blocking" measures.
DNS blocks and sanctions against executives probably
Whenever the EU forces US companies to do something, we get collective outrage on here. So I was wondering: Can we get some collective outrage for this as well?
Otherwise I can just conclude that there's a double standard about this kind of thing here.
Otherwise I can just conclude that there's a double standard about this kind of thing here.
As a EU citizen I don‘t care about any collective outrage on HN. It‘s not even a question of standards, it‘s a question of power and I‘m happy to see that the EU has enough power to pass these kind of laws.
As a US citizen I don't care about the "collective outrage" of people likely working for the surveillance industry. I'm thankful for the EU passing meaningful regulation that recognizes the ideas of privacy and digital competition, as it at least informs the industry even if I can't directly benefit. This situation with TikTok has only come about due to the US government's regulatory abdication of the past twenty years, which was apparently considered just peachy until a foreign company got in on the game.
Of course there is a double standard. As nuanced as your view of the US might be, everybody has to admit that the US doesn't has an exaxtly great track record of sticking to rules they expect others to uphold, be it about trade, democracy, human rights, etc.
A bad side effect of the enorm economic and military power of the US.
But then again China has a way worse track record when it comes to banning US/EU social media companies on their turf.
A bad side effect of the enorm economic and military power of the US.
But then again China has a way worse track record when it comes to banning US/EU social media companies on their turf.
or, your oversimplification misses all the nuance and the difference in the situations, and they're in fact different situations, so the difference in reaction is warranted.
Nope, just a big difference between a one-party state and multiparty states.
What are the arguments to establish that tiktok poses a national security threat ?
Probably classified given the way the vote to do this went down. Check back after the election, they might make it public then
None. This is all manufactured consent.
Looks like this post (of 6) is point-winning:[0] (12points)
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139681
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139681
The American/western hearts and minds are a playing field and a battleground, which the rogue powers are struggling to control at the moment.
Control the media and people's ability to consume information but give people the illusion it's free and open.
Platforms such as this, and any Western one is tightly controlled.
Tiktok, the outlier and it needs to be brought into the fold asap. Instagram, Facebook, YouTube's censorship of Gaza's conflict are abiding by the memo by silencing voices speaking up.
Control the media and people's ability to consume information but give people the illusion it's free and open.
Platforms such as this, and any Western one is tightly controlled.
Tiktok, the outlier and it needs to be brought into the fold asap. Instagram, Facebook, YouTube's censorship of Gaza's conflict are abiding by the memo by silencing voices speaking up.
What happened to the liberty and fairness we're so fond of? Who's going to build products and create new platforms this way?
Good thing for x
I thought America believed in capitalism and the free market? This seems to be the opposite of that philosophy.
Competition and free markets are only for the countries that can’t really compete with us. We like protectionism and customs duties. If that is not enough then there’s always the “national security” argument.
Sorry if this comes across like cynicism. Although I don’t like this system I truly believe this is what it is.
Take for example Chinese EVs, if everything stays the same they will outcompete us and instead of approaching this with better engineering and innovation we’re starting to hear about how those cars may be spying on us. Soon to be banned for our own “safety”.
Take for example Chinese EVs, if everything stays the same they will outcompete us and instead of approaching this with better engineering and innovation we’re starting to hear about how those cars may be spying on us. Soon to be banned for our own “safety”.
It's not so much that it's cynical, it's also that it steers the thread towards an unpleasant and already well-tread line of political bickering where both sides are talking past each other.
Assuming that this honest confusion rather than a trolling talking point, no, it’s never been a purely free market.
There are considerable restrictions in finance, health care and a number of other industries. Relevant to this case, there have been restrictions on foreign ownership of radio and TV stations for a very long time. It’s why Murdoch became a US citizen.
There are considerable restrictions in finance, health care and a number of other industries. Relevant to this case, there have been restrictions on foreign ownership of radio and TV stations for a very long time. It’s why Murdoch became a US citizen.
Americans also constantly talk about freedom and then you look at their history ...
Can you explain?
The history of the United States is not only steeped in oppression on home soil but also consists of a staggering amount of meddling in the sovereignty of other countries. For a nation that goes on and on about freedom, they sure know very little about leaving people to their own devices.
When Americans talk about freedom, they are almost exclusively talking about the freedoms granted to American citizens by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They are not talking about the sovereignty of other nations, that doesn't factor in at all. Frankly, I think you're doing some robust mental gymnastics by equating those freedoms with a freedom from the long arm of Pax Americana.
> The history of the United States is not only steeped in oppression
The history of the entire world is steeped in oppression.
> The history of the United States is not only steeped in oppression
The history of the entire world is steeped in oppression.
Americans are not really free. Some have only been “free” less than 100 years.
Can you define "free" as you see it today, without giving me some kind of anti-capitalist rant?
> Some have only been “free” less than 100 years.
And what about now? Yes, they should've been free from the start. We fought a civil war over this. If you want to hold countries to the standard of the things they've done in the past, then you're ignoring some very big gorillas in the room by pointing your finger at the USA.
> Some have only been “free” less than 100 years.
And what about now? Yes, they should've been free from the start. We fought a civil war over this. If you want to hold countries to the standard of the things they've done in the past, then you're ignoring some very big gorillas in the room by pointing your finger at the USA.
Your requirement of my definition not being anti-capitalist is tough because it is capitalist to endure some people are not free. Work conditions to for-profit prisons with a “war on drugs” building the prison pop are examples.
It is very telling that concern over freedom shows first in your reply as “yeah but capitalism.”
It is very telling that concern over freedom shows first in your reply as “yeah but capitalism.”
For what it's worth, I agree about for-profit prisons. Working against them is a personal pet project of mine, so I was happy to see Biden terminate federal contracts with for-profit prisons in his first month as President [1]. There's still plenty of them out there, but progress is progress.
> It is very telling that concern over freedom shows first in your reply as “yeah but capitalism.”
No, I just had a look at your previous comments and recognized a tired pattern one finds repeated ad nauseam by wannabe communists on Reddit. I didn't feel like making a comment that would just get a reply along the lines of "you've activated my anti-capitalism trap card".
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/biden-s-order-terminates...
> It is very telling that concern over freedom shows first in your reply as “yeah but capitalism.”
No, I just had a look at your previous comments and recognized a tired pattern one finds repeated ad nauseam by wannabe communists on Reddit. I didn't feel like making a comment that would just get a reply along the lines of "you've activated my anti-capitalism trap card".
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/biden-s-order-terminates...
Fair points. I’m not on reddit but understand your reticence. I’m an actual community helping (fire/first responding mostly) leftist trying my best.
But yeah - I do tend to blame capital on herec(hn) lots because, I’ll be honest, hn is a capitalist mob spawner of sorts. :)
But yeah - I do tend to blame capital on herec(hn) lots because, I’ll be honest, hn is a capitalist mob spawner of sorts. :)
I think it's pretty agreed upon that for capitalism to work you need some limitations. This argument is just snarky tbh. We all know that the US has agencies checking monopolies.
How effective are those agencies?
In the tech sector, for example, what came after the 20+ year old United States v. Microsoft Corp. anti trust case that concluded w/out breaking up Microsoft and soft balled the penalty?
Has that acted as a real deterrent in the tech sector, or is it just a footnote about how hard anti monopoly cases can be in practice?
In the tech sector, for example, what came after the 20+ year old United States v. Microsoft Corp. anti trust case that concluded w/out breaking up Microsoft and soft balled the penalty?
Has that acted as a real deterrent in the tech sector, or is it just a footnote about how hard anti monopoly cases can be in practice?
I think the us can do even more in that regard! I remember recent acquisitions being blocked, so they are doing something.
Like enforcing safety standards? These are the “limitations” that the US erodes right now in favour of profits.
Even better point than anti-trust!
Letting yourself be taken advantage of is a fool’s game, no matter what you believe in.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Companies love open standards, at first. They love them to get traction but once they have the majority locked down, use it to force others out. Same with "free" markets.
Companies love open standards, at first. They love them to get traction but once they have the majority locked down, use it to force others out. Same with "free" markets.
Does China allow Facebook to work in China?
Technically yes. Google also.
The caveat being they expect data and servers etc to be present within China and unlike the EU don't allow data to leave China. The penalties are also much much higher.
There are also rules around applying censorship and other requirements, not dissimilar from operating in Thailand, Vietnam, India and probably other markets but those are the 3 I'm very familiar with.
Google previously was happy enough with this arrangement but eventually pulled out. They had very poor market penetration, Baidu then (and now) enjoys a near monopoly on search similar to Google in the US. I imagine that was the key reason rather than the rules themselves as they operate in other very restrictive markets without complaint.
Facebook would have an awful time trying to compete in China tbh. The market is just way too competitive with way too many absolutely cutthroat market participants, completely unlike the US market which was pretty much stagnant before TikTok showed up.
These companies don't enter China for the same reason why many companies don't. Domestic competition there is just too damn tough. If your market isn't already in race to the bottom stage in China it always descends into it pretty quickly because of the rate people clone and adopt similar ideas. If you don't have an unfair advantage you need to be very innovative to stay ahead.
The caveat being they expect data and servers etc to be present within China and unlike the EU don't allow data to leave China. The penalties are also much much higher.
There are also rules around applying censorship and other requirements, not dissimilar from operating in Thailand, Vietnam, India and probably other markets but those are the 3 I'm very familiar with.
Google previously was happy enough with this arrangement but eventually pulled out. They had very poor market penetration, Baidu then (and now) enjoys a near monopoly on search similar to Google in the US. I imagine that was the key reason rather than the rules themselves as they operate in other very restrictive markets without complaint.
Facebook would have an awful time trying to compete in China tbh. The market is just way too competitive with way too many absolutely cutthroat market participants, completely unlike the US market which was pretty much stagnant before TikTok showed up.
These companies don't enter China for the same reason why many companies don't. Domestic competition there is just too damn tough. If your market isn't already in race to the bottom stage in China it always descends into it pretty quickly because of the rate people clone and adopt similar ideas. If you don't have an unfair advantage you need to be very innovative to stay ahead.
The other countries you mentioned doesn't have anything like the great firewall of China. Google etc failed in China because the content you have left once you removed all the sites China bans didn't have many useful hits, that isn't the case in the other countries you talked about. In order to compete at all they would need to redo their algorithm and service from the ground up to fit the Chinese internet because they ban so much that you can't reuse what you did for the rest.
For example, the only countries that bans the entirety of Wikipedia is China and Myanmar, and China has done that much longer. The scale and severity of Chinas censorship is on a whole different level from any other country. Russia censors a few wikipedia pages, China just bans the entire thing, those two are nowhere close and one is much harder to deal with. The other countries that banned wikipedia did so for only a limited period of time or just a small subset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
For example, the only countries that bans the entirety of Wikipedia is China and Myanmar, and China has done that much longer. The scale and severity of Chinas censorship is on a whole different level from any other country. Russia censors a few wikipedia pages, China just bans the entire thing, those two are nowhere close and one is much harder to deal with. The other countries that banned wikipedia did so for only a limited period of time or just a small subset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
> because the content you have left once you removed all the sites China bans didn't have many useful hits
You mean non-Chinese content? Chinese users aren't interested in non-Chinese content by and large. English literacy is better now than it was when Google pulled out and it's still pretty bad.
Dealing with the censorship is trivial. The problem was they couldn't compete on merits and got absolutely dunked by Baidu on search and maps (though there is a ton of competition in maps these days, namely Amap and Gaode Map but it was true when Google pulled out). Primarily because of localisation (because it's natively Chinese) and also because Baidu looks and works like the rest of the Chinese web.
For similar reasons Yahoo is still huge in Japan. It looks and feels Japanese. Google does not.
I really reject the idea that Google failed because of censorship. All of their Chinese competitors had the same restrictions and came out on top is all.
You mean non-Chinese content? Chinese users aren't interested in non-Chinese content by and large. English literacy is better now than it was when Google pulled out and it's still pretty bad.
Dealing with the censorship is trivial. The problem was they couldn't compete on merits and got absolutely dunked by Baidu on search and maps (though there is a ton of competition in maps these days, namely Amap and Gaode Map but it was true when Google pulled out). Primarily because of localisation (because it's natively Chinese) and also because Baidu looks and works like the rest of the Chinese web.
For similar reasons Yahoo is still huge in Japan. It looks and feels Japanese. Google does not.
I really reject the idea that Google failed because of censorship. All of their Chinese competitors had the same restrictions and came out on top is all.
Even if this is reciprocity, it doesn't make sense. If this is the way it is, then services originating from other countries, not just China, should be treated the same way.
If you’re going to base the actions of the US on grounds of what a country run by the communist party does. Then, are we really capitalists?
Then clearly just banning a propaganda outlet is the smallest bit of warfare that should be waged against the communist country. If China is communist, TikTok is an arm of the CCP. If China is capitalist, it's perfectly fine to retaliate against them blocking western companies from operating within their borders.
Free trade != free domestic market and capitalism.
Furthermore even free trade (which the US doesn‘t exactly practice) does not mean allowing foreign adversaries (which China arguably is) to undermine the political system which is democratic (which they may not do yet but there is no need to enable them to being able to choose to do it later).
Furthermore even free trade (which the US doesn‘t exactly practice) does not mean allowing foreign adversaries (which China arguably is) to undermine the political system which is democratic (which they may not do yet but there is no need to enable them to being able to choose to do it later).
If it's a change, it's a welcome one
No, not really - why would it be?
Like how Boeing is strong arming the FAA to allow them to fly? Or pushing Airbus out?
Democracy and capitalism both dies when corporations take over.
Democracy and capitalism both dies when corporations take over.
This is actually standard late stage capitalism. Can’t compete? Lobby your gov to ban/break the competition.
> I thought America believed in capitalism and the free market? This seems to be the opposite of that philosophy.
Yeah, and as an American, I'm so sick of hearing about "capitalism and the free market" that my first impulse is to support anything that irks the monomaniacal believers in those things. They're broken records and it's tiresome.
Yeah, and as an American, I'm so sick of hearing about "capitalism and the free market" that my first impulse is to support anything that irks the monomaniacal believers in those things. They're broken records and it's tiresome.
[deleted]
If TikTok were a Canadian, British, French, German, Korean, Japanese, or Taiwanese company, the US government wouldn't have intervened in the first place.
Conversely, if TikTok were a Canadian, British, French, German, Korean, Japanese, or Taiwanese company, American would not have to fear a hostile government silently gathering data on American users, or a company repeatedly shown to be lying about using its app to do so.
Conversely, if TikTok were a Canadian, British, French, German, Korean, Japanese, or Taiwanese company, American would not have to fear a hostile government silently gathering data on American users, or a company repeatedly shown to be lying about using its app to do so.
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139681