• Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    It’s going to be to their advantage to claim that they’re shutting down, even if they actually want that $50B buyout. If they say they’re going to sell, they’re going to lose what little leverage they have left. The public that wants TikTok will get TikTok, and the public is going to stop pestering politicians about it.

    • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I read it as a bluff too.

      They’re between a rock and a hard place, their best position is to play hardball and rile up their users.

      Yeah, it means nothing to us to leave. We’re losing money!

      If that were really the case why are they in the US at all? Because they know they can make money and their market position is strong.

        • Defaced@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          This is why the whole situation exists, IMO if there was a reason to believe China is trying to influence united states citizens, then this wouldn’t even be a discussion. There are probably hundreds of Chinese companies that operate in the US, why is tik tok signaled out? Because there’s probably a reason they’re being singled out. It might be nothing, but I’m inclined to think that the people who signed the bill know more than what they’re letting on for national security reasons.

          • body_by_make@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Look at any security analysis done on it and you’ll see the insane amount of information it collects from every single user is absolutely stunning. They definitely use their influence and knowledge of individuals to drive opinion of those who use their platform.

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            There are probably hundreds of Chinese companies that operate in the US, why is tik tok signaled out?

            Because it’s an enormous company with a lot of influence on people. If they actually influence people in that way, I don’t know but they could quite easily.

            Personally I don’t care about TikTok.

        • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah I watched this dude show me a video of a device that opens jars and now I am thinking about becoming a spy for the Chinese government.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        But they can’t continue to make money this way. It will be seen as control. So they’re stuck creating a competitor or just writing off the US market.

        • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah I think they’re angling for a reversal, if not they’ll sell and probably take some massive non voting share of the venture along with a bunch of billionaires.

          • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            They won’t sell lol, like why would they? If they truly are owned by the Chinese government why would they sell it to an American company?

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      The public [who] wants TikTok will get TikTok

      In my family and peer group, the people who want to use tiktok and the people who could get and use a VPN to access a side-loaded tiktok app, has no intersect group. It’s just a bridge too far for all of them.

      I’ll push them onto the fediverse yet.

      • WillySpreadum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Worst part about Lemmy being a tech heavy space is that so many users spout shit like “They’re not banning it, just deplatforming it” like yes, dipshit, that’s effectively a ban for something like 99% of people. You think 100,000,000 people are gonna fucking sideload the app? Love this place but it can be a bubble sometimes.

        • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          Deplatforming is equivalent to banning in basically every instance. The public town square doesn’t exist in the digital world we all operate in. Change my mind.

        • qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          Situations like this are a good opportunity to increase the rate of tech literacy in a broader population or to promote decentralized solutions, but unfortunately that’s a pipe dream.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      The public that wants TikTok will get TikTok, and the public is going to stop pestering politicians about it.

      Has their user base mobilized at all? Maybe it’s just because I don’t use TikTok but I haven’t really heard much from their users about the ban. Which has been kind of unexpected.

      • firadin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Apparently TikTok sent out push notifications telling users to call their representatives. Minors were being provided instructions with their representatives’ phone numbers and contact info, but didn’t even know who they were calling and were asking basic questions like “What is Congress?”

        Kind of shows the amount of power TikTok has over American youth.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          I love how they demonstrated they aren’t influencing people by sending out a mass message telling people what to do. It doesn’t get any more comical than that.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            7 months ago

            Malign influence. Telling people to participate in democracy isn’t a bad thing.

            • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yes but telling an army of thirteen year olds doing dance videos to call representatives is worthless, if anything it hurts TikToks argument since it proves they’re doing the influencing of Americans that the government wants them not doing

            • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              You missed the entire point. They declared 1) We are not doing anything of that sort, then: 2) they did exactly things of that sort. It’s like a slap stick comedy show.

        • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          And facebook tells its users to vote. Encouraging people to make their voices heard and engage in the democratic process is a good thing.

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’d say absolutely, if Cambridge Analytica wasn’t a thing. I’d honestly rather have people not vote than be motivated to go vote because they think the liberal communists are putting fluoride in water to make frogs gay.

            It’s somehow always the organizations and individuals who are trying to manipulate people that seem to care the most about people’s voices being heard in politics. Churches, social media, daytime TV, that crazy uncle you don’t like to talk to at family gatherings…

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Hey some of us are the crazy cousin saying you should vote while also advocating pissing on the floor when your job tries to deny bathroom rights.

              • Stovetop@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                I’d prefer to have you as my cousin instead of the one I have who hates brown people and believes Trump won the 2020 election.

                • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Only if ya can deal with ranting about how modern cars suck due to overuse of electronics and half crazed rants about guns and how we should bring back neighborhood militias.

          • Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            “Vote to participate in democracy! Here’s some local voting resources”

            vs

            “Vote to protect our interests! Tell your representative that they are killing free speech if they don’t listen to me”

            • Serinus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Rival is better than enemy, but yes. We’re as friendly with China as we are enemies. It’s complicated, but I don’t want the simple version to be the narrative.

              • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                They’re not a rival. They’re a hostile power.

                We are both dependent on each other because that’s how the global economy works, but we are not friends and there is no possible path to friendship unless one of our countries has an extremely bloody revolution and completely changes our mechanism of government.

                Our core ideologies are not compatible.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      When you’re forced to participate in capitalism, your only option is to play the game. I agree, this is mostly just a bluff.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Why though? Why would they give up their trade secrets? They have a global market.

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        They could sell the user accounts and content and let another company clip that into their own recommendation algo.

        I’ve been a part of a few tech acquisitions that have worked this way. They keep their secret sauce but hand over the community.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The question is if anyone would buy it without the algorithm and the other stuff worth money. Users by themselves aren’t very useful if everyone leaves after a day.

          • Jesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            It would come down to price. I’m sure someone would pay for the content, accounts, and brand. But what dollar amount are we talking about when the algo isn’t on the table.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            The algorithm either isn’t as valuable as they believe or the government’s concern is legitimate and we have a real problem.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah that’s certainly possible. I just don’t think it will go the way people are thinking.

  • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Makes sense from a business point of view. Why sell to create a new competitor with the same technology and an impregnable market base in the USA?

    Better to force US competition to start from scratch.

    • festus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      I mean the sale agreement could require the buyer to never expand outside the US.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      For money. Whoever buys it has to pay you for it. Shutting down just means leaving a gaping hole in American social media that some other company will fill and you’ll be in the same position but with less money.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah I agree, there really is no incentive for a for-profit company to choose shutting down over selling. Unless they never cared about profit and had ulterior motives from the very beginning.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        IG is owned by FaceBook which actually has about double the userbase of TikTok if you don’t count DouYin’s 700 Million. I kind of hope that they also fuck up and trigger Section I if not full blown Section H of the bill.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Why don’t they just sell TikTok to a US Citizen who happens to believe TikTok should remain the same?

      TikTok would remain exactly the same, with the exact same algorithms, but it would then be the free speech of a US Citizen so everyone would be happy. Maybe TikTok couldn’t send the data directly to China anymore, but they could certainly sell personal data on the shadowy data markets, just like every other US owned tech company does, and if that data happens to find its way to China then 🤷 .

      Shell companies hide the true owner of companies all the time. Why can’t TikTok do the same?

      The problem is they targeted TikTok specifically in the law and it will be easy to circumvent. “TikTok is banned, but check out this totally new website called TokTik with the exact same content but owned by a US Citizen”.

      This is why they should have created regulations that apply to all companies. Because making regulations that depend on who owns the company will only cause TikTok to change the technicality of who owns the company. They can do so through all kinds of legal tricks without ever actually giving up control.

      • yildolw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Why don’t they just sell TikTok to a US Citizen who happens to believe TikTok should remain the same?

        They already did that. TikTok is incorporated in the Cayman Islands with headquarters in Los Angeles. The bill of attainder is post-that

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        This is part of Section H of H.R.815 that was signed into law:

        (A) any of—
        
        (i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
        
        (ii) TikTok;
        
        (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or
        
        (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or
        
        (B) a covered company that—
        
        (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and
        
        (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—
        
        (I) a public notice proposing such determination; and
        
        (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.
        
        (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
        

        So, no, they don’t just get to change their name. They don’t get to change everything and still send data overseas to China. They have to cut ties with the CCP or else they cannot escape this.

        • Buttons@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I see. You’re right about the text of the law. Thanks for taking the time to post that.

          I would say it violates the 1st Amendment then. US Citizens have a right to say what they want, which includes saying what China wants if that is what the person wants.

          The courts will have to decide.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          For the record, they’re not currently sending data to China. Though they’d probably only have to gently twist one or two arms and need about 12 hours to do so.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            The company openly stores the data in China. Ex-employee Yintao “Roger” Yu, who was head of Engineering for all of ByteDance’s US Operations in 2017-2018, claims that the CCP had full immediate access to all collected data.

            • Buttons@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I’ve also heard the data is physically stored and hosted by Oracle. So maybe China just copies it? The primary copy is in the US currently. Which doesn’t really mean much.

              I wouldn’t be surprised if Meta’s data ended up in China too. But Congress isn’t targeting them.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                When Facebook was investigated following the 2016 election for selling Data that inevitably ended up in Russia, the DOJ reccomended their case to the FTC who in 2019 fined them 5 BILLION USD. This isn’t even the only time they’ve been fined or investigated, either, they’ve got ongoing lawsuits from the states and federal governments.

                And now, the FTC no longer has to wait for a DOJ investigation because H.R.815 also included Section I that enshrines their ability to fine the companies who sell data to adversarial countries including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc.

                But sure, “tHeY’RE NoT TaRGetTiNG faCeBOoK.” I can’t tell if you’re supremely uninformed or a CCP shill, but to be very frank I don’t have patience for you in either circumstance.

                • Buttons@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You’ve made the most substantive comments in this post. Especially quoting the law and this information about Facebook.

                  For context, Facebook’s revenue in 2019 was 70 billions dollars. So a 5 billion dollar fine isn’t nothing. Everyone can judge these bans and fines for themselves and judge whether there’s a double standard though.

                  You seem upset because I said TikTok stores their data in Oracle, but that’s what they said in 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/17/tech/tiktok-user-data-oracle/index.html But, as you say, it appears in 2018 they were storing their data in China, and presumably that continued up until mid-2022.

                  I’m not a shill, but I am a cynic who believes the government is acting on behalf of their corporate friends (US media companies) rather than on general principles. I have no love for China. I wanted regulation that applied equally to all US companies. If you don’t want to talk to me, fine, I’ll discuss my opinion with others; even so, you’ve shared a lot of important and concrete information here, so thanks again.

            • Serinus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              That’s the guy who’s worked there for six months and exaggerated his role there, right?

              I’m in favor of the bill, but I want the information we have to be accurate.

      • lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Why don’t they just sell TikTok to a US Citizen who happens to believe TikTok should remain the same?

        Who? What USA citizen is prepared to buy something for the privilege of fighting the USA government with would obviously get mad and probably block the sale if byte Dance TikTok is still involved.

        I don’t really follow USA politics but didn’t this law pass by quite large margins? They could obviously ban toktik.

        • Buttons@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          They can’t actually ban TikTok by name, it’s unconstitutional to make laws targeted at individuals.

          The current law actually says “no company can operate in the US with over 20% owned by China, Iran, N. Korea, or Russia”, or something like that.

          There’s a lot of people in the US and at least of few of them would be willing to run TikTok the same way, same algorithms, same content, and sell the users data on shadowy data markets (which China can surely get their hands on), etc. I’m repeating myself now.

          Again, my point is there are a lot of people in the US and surely some of them can form a company willing to do what China wants, and isn’t that their right by our laws and morals of free speech? I know if things get heated enough laws and morals will be ignored (see Japanese internment camps).

          And my even broader point is that this move against TikTok has ulterior motives. We should have created regulations that apply to all companies instead of targeting TikTok specifically. Even though we didn’t technically target TikTok specifically, we effectively did.

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            If you help TikTok in that way you would absolutely get on the government’s hit list (literal or not).

            It would probably be quite easy to just make a new law or revision that stops the theoretical loophole.

      • viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not really, they would still be operating the same business in every other part of the world, except for the US. So you’d then have US Tiktok competing with World Tiktok. They can’t be forced to sell the global operations due to a mandate from some American court, no matter how much they think to be the world police.

  • kirklennon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    TikTok’s daily active users in the U.S. is also just about 5% of ByteDance’s DAUs worldwide, said one of the sources.

    So much drama in the US over this but it’s apparently merely a money-losing afterthought for its owner.

    • Album@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      114
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s almost like making money is not the primary purpose of this website 🤔

          • whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I have a Geography degree lmao, but also, you’re an asshole. I don’t even know what you’re trying to accomplish with this comment.

            • wewbull
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              7 months ago

              Your sensing of humour is failing.

              • whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                7 months ago

                Didn’t seem like a joke to me, just seemed dismissive and rude. 🤷🏻‍♂️ People on this site frequently pull this 🤓oh yeah name a whatever🤓 shit unironically, so unless Lemmy gets a culture makeover I’m going to assume people are being assholes.

                • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  All that talking and you still ain’t even named one other country besides united states. The whole world is united States.

          • whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            It’s not worth anything, your argument was that the US being such a small percentage of tiktoks userbase meant that the American market is only worthwhile to TikTok as a spying tool. Which does not make any sense.

            I’m saying that tiktok has other markets in other countries, and the US only represents a small part of their global reach, so of course tiktok would only be a small percentage of their userbase.

      • Buttons@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’ve always wondered what would happen if ByteDance sells TikTok for $5 to a US Citizen who frequently visits China for lavish vacations, and that US Citizen decide to keep all the algorithms the same.

        If China has an ulterior motive with TIkTok, can’t they just find a US Citizen to carry out their ulterior motive?

      • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah same with Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, fox news, CNN, News max, Msnbc and every single other media outlet by that logic. Apparently any company not owned Merica is propaganda too.

    • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      This means absolutely nothing.

      How much of their advertising revenue comes from the US. They have shopping, I’ll bet the US buys the most.

      China already has livestream shopping, it’s still relatively novel in the US. Bytedance has to compete with other local competitors in China, hating a nice external source of revenue in the US fuelling these Chinese battle is a huge boon.

      I know the article says loss making app, but I bet a lot of money goes back to R&D creating the loss. They pay massive sums to get merchants to sell on their app for example.

      • kirklennon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        This means absolutely nothing. How much of their advertising revenue comes from the US.

        To quote the article again, “The U.S. accounted for about 25% of TikTok overall revenues last year, said a separate source with direct knowledge.” Honestly, I think that makes the case for shutting it down even stronger. TikTok isn’t in some growth-at-all-costs phase in the US. It’s likely near its peak potential userbase. If they haven’t been able to make it profitable by now, that doesn’t bode well for it ever becoming significantly profitable. Absent the legal issues, they think it’s still worth at least trying, but as it stands, it’s just a lot of money in and, just as quickly, out, with nothing to show for it at the end of the day.

        • firadin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          You’re assuming its a profit-focused endeavor rather than a propaganda arm of the Chinese government.

          • kirklennon@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I think it’s a privately-owned, profit-focused endeavor that is nevertheless beholden to the Chinese government and which the government wants to take as much advantage of as possible. Deep down, I’m certain that their sole goal is to make as much money for themselves as they possibly can. If they also need to exfiltrate some data and send it to the CCP, that’s just a necessary business expense.

            • firadin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Not US corporation good, just US corporation = US controlled. This isn’t a morality play, it’s a national security play.

          • Buttons@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            If TikTok’s purpose is to spread Chinese propaganda, can’t they just find a US Citizen that can run the website for them?

            “Yeah, it’s my personal website where I exercise my 1st Amendment rights, also it has 100 million daily users and I happen to agree with China on a lot of things.” If a US Citizen were to say this, there would be nothing illegal about it I think?

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              We are talking about the same country right? The US committed the fucking Tuskegee experiments, MK ultra, and more recently Gitmo as a whole. If some dumbfuck wants to be a Chinese puppet I wouldnt put it past the feds to off em, shame they commited suicide by shooting themself in the back of the head twelve times with a shotgun.

              • Buttons@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Okay, but I’m more interested in intra-legal reasons this couldn’t be done.

                I’m sure they could find 2, 3, or 3000 US Citizens who are willing to sell out to China, and then TikTok would be owned by US Citizens, but would still be doing what China wants.

                • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I was moreso pointing out the obvious and quick solution. On a more legal situation, I suspect that said individual could be taken down as a foreign agent, most of the laws around that shit from the cold war are still on the books. The fact of the matter is youre are coming at this from the perspective that we dont have laws around what foreign agents are allowed to do, Americans can certainly be foreign agents just ask my 2x great grandfather who was snitching on the Bund who were almost all American born.

            • firadin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Well China is refusing to divest, i.e. sell it to a US owner so clearly that’s not an option for them. If it was about the money they would have.

        • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          5% of customers driving 25% of revenue is a market you want to invest in.

          Amazon wasn’t profitable for how many years? It’s the exact same play. Take a loss to create something artificially desirable, strangle the competition and lock up your walled garden, then crank the prices.

          I’ve talked with merchants TikTok Shop recruited, TikTok was paying them a ton to sell there, eating their processing fees, their shipping costs, and paying for massive discounts to customers so they could juice their metrics.

          They’re starting to crank up their fees this spring and summer.

          Same with advertising, advertisers want to go to TikTok, but I’m sure most of the actual spend is happening outside the app on influencers. TikTok wants that pie too.

          Taking a loss means nothing in this context

        • Snapz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Also, hard to quantify how much of the popularity of tiktok is driven by US content globally, versus locally. You lose all that UGC is you cut out US

        • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, kinda

          You watch TikTok, someone shills a product, you buu it with a button that pops up, or you click into their store to buy their cosmetics line.

    • nieceandtows@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Looks like they’re saying it’s running at a loss and is valued at $50b, so that Musk would end up buying it off their hands.

    • Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      79
      ·
      7 months ago

      Don’t use it if you don’t like it, but don’t give this bullshit Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda control of something just because you don’t like it.

      It’s just as bad or good as any other algorithm based content app like Facebook or Instagram. If we have a problem with privacy for example then go after that like with gdpr.

      • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think you have it backwards, in that it’s the US that’s trying to stop all the Chinese propaganda coming from that app.

        And if TT pull out of the US, it’s pretty telling that their core drive for that thing wasn’t money.

        • Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          Why would a tech company sell their product to another competitor in such a big landscape like US? It’s quite very much because of money.

          • _tezz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Well for one, because if they don’t then they will get precisely 0 money. If it is indeed about the money then we would absolutely expect them to sell no? Otherwise… There’s no money

            • Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              0 money from us market. They still have a big market outside US. Why would they sabotage it by giving an advantage to a competitor. No money is better than negative money.

              • _tezz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                While they would no longer be competing in the US market, any ‘competitor’ would have to do the work of gaining billions of customers in other countries, that are already entrenched into Tik Tok user space. I think that worry is kinda moot if you’re TT leadership.

        • yildolw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          If France passes a law requiring Google to sell Google France to a French company, would Google pulling out instead of selling mean their core drive in France wasn’t money?

      • dko1905@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        I don’t think it’s primarily about the algorithm or “Public Enlightenment and Propaganda” but instead about data and company ownership. Currently the US and EU are far closer allies with each other than with china. Services that are owned/controlled by their countries are therefore prioritized, and competing services from non-ally countries are way more scrutinized.

      • wewbull
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        We already sanction TV stations because of their propaganda content e.g. Russia Today. I see this as no different.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Then the EU would need some evidence of propaganda.

  • Buttons@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    If ByteDance is a normal company they will seek profits and sell for as much as they can.

    But if TikTok is a Chinese psyop, they’ll just use any of the many legal tricks we allow to change the “owner” while China still retains control. Companies do this all the time, look at shell companies and such. It’s super easy for China to mask the true owner if they decide to.

    This is why we should make broadly applicable regulations instead of picking on one specific company.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      If ByteDance is a normal company they will seek profits and sell for as much as they can.

      If the sale is forced, the value of the property will be depressed. Why would they take pennies on the dollar to liquidate IP rather than fight it out in court and try to get the provision overturned?

      This is why we should make broadly applicable regulations instead of picking on one specific company.

      The law is not specific to TikTok. It is any company owned by a subsidiary of an “enemy” state, of which China is listed as such.

      And selling the company to a non-Chinese holding company wouldn’t work, because the dispute is over Chinese IP law affecting how ByteDance does business. Move the company overseas and it would no longer be covered by the IP provisions (something the Chinese investors don’t want, because they benefit from the IP provisions).

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Why would the forced sale of a product have an impact on the value?

          I have a shelf full of cupcakes. They each cost me $1 to make. I would like to generate a 20% profit, so I sell them for $1.20/ea.

          Then the government passes the “UnderpantsWeevil Can’t Sell Cupcakes In the US Act of 2024”, effective in one minute. A financial tycoon from American Cupcake Corp comes by my shop and says “I’ll pay you $.10 for those cupcakes, which will be worthless to you in the next 59 seconds.” He intended to buy them from me and sell them at his store, across the street, for $1.30/ea.

          He’s not under any time constraint, but I am. So if I can’t move the balance of my cupcakes in a minute, they become worthless to me.

          Logically, I should sell any cupcakes I can’t move off the shelf in a minute to American Cupcake Corp, even at this depressed asking price.

          If anything, the fact that it’s being forced to “sell” should make the existing social media companies froth at the mouth.

          Why would any social media company bid the real value of the property when the real value falls to zero in nine months?

          And - let us assume, hypothetically, that these American tech companies have a history of operating as a cartel - why would they not coordinate their bids to guarantee the smallest possible auction price?

          • Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m not an economist but that makes sense to me.

            What about a modified scenario:

            A small island has three cupcake makers operating out of their homes: Meta, Alphabet, and Bytedance. Each has captured a section of the island’s market with cupcakes and at this point, there’s no real opportunity for growth. Meta can’t convince Bytedance’s customers to switch because they prefer other flavors. Meta would need to purchase one of the other cupcake companies in order to expand.

            None of the cupcake makers are interested in selling their companies. They consider themselves elite and their successes feed into the CEO and shareholder perceptions of value and success.

            Now, we consider that one of the cupcake companies is funded by a rich uncle from a different country. The island’s elders decide that the uncle’s influence is too great and orders Bytedance to sell its cupcake company or leave the island.

            We’ve established earlier that people who like Bytedance cupcakes don’t necessarily want to eat Meta or Alphabet cupcakes, so if they leave the market, those customers may be gone for good. They may have a change of heart and decide that cupcakes of any flavor are fine, but they may also be angry that the government forced their favorite place out of business. In any case, Meta and Alphabet cannot rely capturing this segment of the market to grow.

            Faced with the dilemma of possibly gaining customers organically or definitely gaining customers by purchasing their preferred product brand, I’d argue that the remaining companies may jump on the opportunity to purchase Bytedance before they are forced out. None of the cupcake companies were up for sale in a traditional sense before, so this was never a realistic path to achieve growth.

          • Zink@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Why would any social media company bid the real value of the property when the real value falls to zero in nine months?

            I could see Google buying the brand even without the secret algorithm, and now the next app update will start showing YouTube Shorts. Or maybe they would just start showing “tiktoks” in the YouTube app, with no mention of yt shorts.

            Meta seems like a possible choice too. Hell, maybe Elon Musk will waste billions of dollars ruining it and throwing away an extremely popular brand.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I could see Google buying the brand even without the secret algorithm

              Not at the company’s pre-law market cap

      • ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Does selling from one hand to the other actually matter when it comes to value? If I own a company and sell it to myself via a shell corporation have I actually lost anything, except a tax write off?

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I take no stance on the psyop thing but is always selling the best way to seek profits. I say no. Unless they can sell and somehow force the buyer to operate exclusively in the USA. If not then there is still the rest of the world to profit from and selling their entire USA branch would suddenly create a new huge competitor.

    • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      So was google an American psyop for pulling out of China instead of submitting to censorship?

    • Dearth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Tiktok is used globally. Only American politicians seem concerned about the platform why would bytedance sell it when they can just continue operating in 180 other countries around the world?

      • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Actually many governments are concerned about it. But only the US (so far) had pulled the nuclear option.

        I feel like they’re threatening a shutdown in the hopes of getting them to reverse their decision because if they just quietly go along with it, other countries will likely quickly follow suit in short order.

        The reality is that the lifespan of “most popular social media app” is incredibly short. In the space of a few short years, we’ve gone from MySpace to Facebook to twitter to vine to Snapchat and now to tiktok.

        TikTok will soon enough be replaced by “the next cool thing” and BD knows that if they sell in the US, that new entity will quickly replace them globally because the US effectively IS the influencer market.

        Viewers go where the content is, and that’s still overwhelmingly American (for better or worse). There is no successful social media app without including the US and BD knows it.

  • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I dislike TikTok but should you really be banning platforms you don’t like?

    Sanction them if they misbehave, yes. Prevent most of the population from communicating using it? Absolutely not.

    Americans have weird priorities when it comes to freedom. The mental gymnastics I’ve been seeing trying to justify a ban of a platform to a massive population of people is nuts.

    No, it isn’t “actually upholding” freedom of speech to ban TikTok.

    • Toribor@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Congress believes it’s a national security threat which is probably true but they haven’t bothered explaining this to their constituents at all. Ideally they’d pass comprehensive privacy protection laws to setup standards that both domestic and foreign companies would be subject to. Then companies either adjust their behaviors and meet a certain level of transparency or they would be prosecuted under the law.

      But no… We get this instead: a confusing and obviously targeted ultimatum with Congress telling everyone ‘trust me bro this is the only way’.

      • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        deally they’d pass comprehensive privacy protection laws to setup standards that both domestic and foreign companies would be subject to.

        No, no, no. That would mean dismantling PRISM and the FISA. Gathering data on citizens is only bad when China does it.

        • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I mean, to be fair, both are extremely bad and should be stopped, but a hostile foreign country gathering data and pushing propaganda on your citizens IS worse than you or non-hostile foreign countries doing it.

          • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I would argue that gathering data about your own citizens is actively worse than china doing it; an average US citizen has a lot more to lose if the 3-letter-agencies or the police use it against them, because those are who you would have to deal with in person.

            • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Valid point. I think the issue is that we know there is no good reason for China to have that data, and we know that they are hostile, so it’s an easy decision.

    • bighatchester@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t think most Americans want tiktok banned . Unfortunately the US government just does what ever they want and right now there is too much pro Palestine information on tiktok .

    • rusticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      lol you think “freedom of speech” includes foreign adversary right to harvest American citizen data?

      • NeatPinecone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Exactly. I only want my data to be harvested by the NSA. It feels more patriotic.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    So be it. The vaccuum it will leave will get filled by another platform.

  • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is obviously a negotiation tactic.

    If ByteDance doesn’t want to sell their stupid algorithm, they could simply rip it out of TikTok, replace it with a random number generator or any other off-the-shelf recommendation engine, and proceed with the sale.

    Find their lowest paid summer intern from the university computer science department, tell him to write some sort of recommendation algorithm and he has two weeks to do it, then whatever he comes up with make it live and that’s all the new owner gets.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I doubt the recommendation algorithm is particularly special, the userbase is the more important thing IMO. However, any purchaser would need to implement something decent if they want to maintain that userbase.

      • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Obv without the algorithm TikTok loses some value. However it loses less value than if they just pull the plug.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s like Twitter. Yeah, it lost a bunch of value when Musk gutted it, but it’s still relevant today. So if someone less hostile to the core userbase buys it, I don’t think some growing pains from a change in algorithm would kill it.

  • XNX@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    7 months ago

    The amount of people happy about their government deciding to ban websites and apps is terrifying. They dont give a fuck about your privacy they’re just mad they dont control the algorithm. Now they can have people move to instagram reels where its easier to serve the propaganda the oligarchs prefer

      • XNX@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        7 months ago

        And facebook isnt? Facebook did experiments on teens to see if theyre easier to manipulate when theyre depressed. They took money to apread fake news to manipulate voters for the presidential election. Yall are so blinded by the china boogeyman its absurd

          • cybersin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Does anyone even use FB anymore besides boomers?

            Ok, so boomers are not actually people, facebook’s 3 billion active users don’t exist, and 250 million of those fake people are certainly not from the fake US.

            But TikTok…

            Amazing how we are talking of Chinese surveillance while the US just renewed another one of its surveillance bills.

            So much “I am immune to, and can spot all propaganda” in this thread.

              • Serinus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                His point would be legit and fine if he didn’t tack on the “only I am right and you are wrong” part.

                It’s true that we should be passing something like GDPR that ensures privacy in all apps, and not just TikTok.

                But I’m certainly in favor of going after TikTok regardless. I hope Facebook and Google and Reddit and Apple are next on the list.

          • XNX@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            7 months ago

            If tiktok can be considered owned by the Chinese gov so can facebook https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM theres tons of programs secret and public that shows american tech companies have to obey to the US government demands.

            Boomers vote more than anyone else

            Facebook owns all the biggest apps, instagram whatsapp, and now threads is getting bigger than twitter. Great lets kill competition because scary china boogeyman all put all the power in the hands of mark zuckerberg, the conservatives that manipulate the platform and pay to manipulate the people on it.

            • Album@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              7 months ago

              If tiktok can be considered owned by the Chinese gov so can facebook https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM theres tons of programs secret and public that shows american tech companies have to obey to the US government demands.

              “In 2014, ByteDance established an internal Chinese Communist Party (CCP) committee.[47] The company’s vice president, Zhang Fuping, serves as the company’s CCP Committee Secretary.[48][49]”

              This is not a defense of FB or american companies, but rather an indictment of tiktok and an acknowledgement that the degree of CCP involvement in tiktok is not the same as neolib involvement in FB.

              • XNX@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                7 months ago

                PRISM and countless programs arent conspiracies they are facts. The US isnt totalitarian to their citizens but they are to the millions of people who’s countries theyve placed fascists into power to kill and imprison their citizens

              • yamanii@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                7 months ago

                So why did the PRISM project exists? If there is freedom to deny the government access why did american companies all get in bed with it? This is also not a conspiracy since Snowden will be jailed if he steps foot in american soil.

        • Dran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          It is possible to both be anti-chinese government and also want comprehensive privacy laws in the US. Like, I absolutely buy that the Chinese government has access to tiktok data. I, however, don’t think forcing a sale is the right way to deal with any of this. Comprehensive privacy and data collection laws would go much farther towards making it so it doesn’t really matter who owns what.

      • shameless@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        You wanna talk Chinese spyware, why are they not outright banning Temu? That’s a much better documented case of actually being spyware.

        In terms of Tiktok being spyware, they are tracking users in much the same ways that every other big social media company is. Should other nations be worried about Facebook sharing that data with the US govt to produce psyops campaigns against foreign nations?

        I’m against any country blocking access to things in the name of “national security” and providing little to no evidence on it. Its been done too many times to trojan horse in other malicious activities that governments want to do.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        For spyware the cyber security community seems pretty meh about it…

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The u.s. still wouldn’t control the algorithm even if bytedance sold because they are not required to sell to a u.s. company. As long as the new company isn’t controlled by the ccp(or probably also russ, n Korea, iran) the u.s. doesn’t care who owns it.

  • xia@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    7 months ago

    This seems to be a pattern. Govts flex over tech companies, techs blackout a country instead of complying, repeat.