TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#381

Post by dasudasu » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #326

billfruit wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really this move seems nothing related at all to US companies not having sufficient access to China. If then why this 10 year gap from action to reaction. Many here seems to take this particular view of this move being a retaliation of some sort, but I feel that is a naive view of what US is doing here and how it will be perceived around the world. Put in specific data protection/privacy laws and regulations applicab…

> If then why this 10 year gap from action to reaction. Perhaps due to a change in administration to one that is willing to engage in retaliation because globalisation is less popular with its voter base. > Put in specific data protection/privacy laws and regulations applicable to all players, not hound a single company without being able to prove any wrong doing in their part, The argument here is that china's prote…

China was never part of the TPP. But any treaty or international norm has and will be disregarded if it has any downside to them. Their own domestic laws are only selectively enforced.

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#382

Post by chrischen » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:40 PM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #338

andrewPP wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the Chinese government/legal system is well known for long and most Chinese people wish it can improve over time. It is weird to see that some people in the US wants to celebrate and justify the deterioration of their designed-to-be-perfect system.

Who’s celebrating? In this thread? I’m just pointing out the hypocrites crying “hypocrisy!”

It would be hypocrisy if China wasn’t a heavily planned market economy that they are in fact claiming to be.

You have two systems, and one of them is having doubts about the efficacy of its own system.

In theory at least, China’s planning either results in less competitive alternatives, or eventually it would have to open up its economy (when the playground is more fair) to foster its own innovation. If it never allows competition then innovation would languish.

If we take action in contradiction to this natural series of economic events, we would be hypocrites as we’d be losing faith in our core economic beliefs.

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#383

Post by quantum_state » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

The government's behavior should not be allowed in a country of rule of law. We should all wake up to defend our God given right to use apps we like. Guys, please don't fall into the trap of us vs them. The governments are all bullying us, the people. They raised tariff in the name of whatever, yet in reality, they collect more tax and we pay more for goods we need. The same goes with banning apps. The reality is that we are being stripped away more and more choices and freedom. So, we the people need to wake up and stand against it!

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#384

Post by bllguo » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

ergocoder wrote: post #352

bllguo wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because contrary to what you believe, many Chinese looked up to aspects of the US.

I doubt that is true. There may be some percentage that supports US. But definitely not the majority. I'd guess it's a very small percentage.

look, things aren't binary.. No, it's not "support", obviously they largely stand by their country over the US. But it's not North Korea; they understand that life is good in the US, propaganda aside. They don't think our systems don't work _in general_, they think it wouldn't work _for them_

to directly answer your question, if you think this is a war of ideology, this move doesn't do the US any favors, regardless of how necessary or justified it is

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#385

Post by whoevercares » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #377

whoevercares wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does comparing the total always make sense? How about we take the average? Twice the amount means each Chinese person emit about 1/5 greenhouse of an American does. Man are created equal and Chinese people have the equal right to emit for their own prosperity Reminds me of some downplay of China’s progress by looking at averages

Prosperity is not a right. Past emissions by some do not create future emissions allowances for others. We should all be held accountable for future emissions, as the climate cares little for equality concerns. With that said, it’s entirely feasible to transition faster to not needing to emit carbon to raise or maintain quality of life. As I mention above, everyone should be accountable for that.

> prosperity is not right

If we directly translate this to Chinese, the statement doesn’t make any sense. Is “pursuing prosperity” a right?

Looks like between the two cultures there might be quite a diverge Of the definition of “right”

Otherwise though I agree with what you said and China probably has been making a good progress already. Believe it or not, low Carbon life style is promoted by the official media

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#386

Post by zmmmmm » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:44 PM UTC

osrec wrote: post #363

billfruit wrote: post #195

As someone from the third world this leaves a very bad feeling if it happens. I do expect it runs into legal hurdles before that. Neither Apple nor Google have found TikTok problematic enough to delist them from their app stores. Neither is there charges that TikTok may have broken US laws. Banning something which hasn't broken US laws, on arbitrary grounds shouldn't be possible. The President shouldn't have authorit…

I honestly feel the ban may well be a direct result of Tiktok users helping boycott a political rally in Tulsa. They were expecting hundreds of thousands to turn up, but only a few thousand turned up, leaving the organisers utterly embarrassed.

I guess I'm even more cynical. I don't think it's an accident that Zuck is playing much more friendly to Trump than people may have expected. This would be the perfect quid pro quo. I hate to think it could be happening like that, and it sits purely in conspiracy theory land. However it is completely consistent with the level of corruption from the administration in other areas and amoral approach by Facebook to its business.

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#387

Post by m0zg » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:44 PM UTC

em500 wrote: post #378

m0zg wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm old enough to remember how in 2017 people were un-ironically talking about putting Zuck in jail because Russia allegedly ("allegedly" because it was never proven this was state sponsored) spent $100K to organize some pro- and anti-Trump protests on Facebook, and Facebook allowed Cambridge Analytica do essentially the same data harvesting as Obama's campaign in 2012. But a Chinese communist party controlled media…

I think what OP is arguing is fairly straightforward: if TikTok violated actual laws, take them to court, if they didn't, leave them alone. Is the USA supposed to be country that respects the rule of law, or a banana republic directed by the whims of some supreme leader?

The wheels of justice turn too slowly for election interference, which a state controlled company like ByteDance is almost certain to perpetrate. There's even plausible deniability - you could blame it on "algorithms".

Succinctly, here's why TikTok will get banned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSTHgoaVtSw

This is also why Google, Twitter and Facebook will get their asses reamed at some point if they continue doing what they're doing.

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#388

Post by albacur » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:44 PM UTC

billfruit wrote: post #195

As someone from the third world this leaves a very bad feeling if it happens. I do expect it runs into legal hurdles before that. Neither Apple nor Google have found TikTok problematic enough to delist them from their app stores. Neither is there charges that TikTok may have broken US laws. Banning something which hasn't broken US laws, on arbitrary grounds shouldn't be possible. The President shouldn't have authorit…

> Chinese policy seems to have not significantly changed in the last 5 years towards the US, but on the other hand US seemed ever more keen and eger to pursue a hostile attitude towards China.

For decades, China has blocked U.S. companies from fair competition, reneged on trade deals when it suits them, backed out of industrial partnerships after extracting the IP it deems useful, and generally been a bad trade partner.

I agree that the president shouldn't have authority to arbitrarily block a product or company (and ultimately he doesn't, he'll need broader support among elected officials), but it's absurd to suggest that the U.S. should blindly accept hostile behavior for decades on end without reacting, or else itself be labeled "hostile."

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#389

Post by YarickR2 » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

bladegash wrote: post #360

vkou wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TikTok is not a national security problem, no more than Whatsapp or Telegram or Skype is a national security problem. The last time I asked folks here to explain to me why they think its a national security problem, I got a list of arguments that were just a little bit less plausible then those for the existence of Santa Claus. Just because Trump says something (while providing no proof) does not make it true.

A straight forward argument that comes to my mind is TikTok being used in the manner Cambridge Analytica used Facebook. Except in this case, it is being done by a State sponsored entity with vast resources (monetarily and people-wise). Further, instead of it being used to help a candidate become elected, it's purpose would be to influence foreign opinions of China/the PRC. That doesn't sound implausible to me.

Other countries shold summarily ban Twitter and Facebook, out of fear of possible local elections influence by US government

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#390

Post by chrischen » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

jchw wrote: post #346

billfruit wrote: post #195

As someone from the third world this leaves a very bad feeling if it happens. I do expect it runs into legal hurdles before that. Neither Apple nor Google have found TikTok problematic enough to delist them from their app stores. Neither is there charges that TikTok may have broken US laws. Banning something which hasn't broken US laws, on arbitrary grounds shouldn't be possible. The President shouldn't have authorit…

As a United States citizen, I don’t agree that we’re obligated to play fairly with someone who brazenly refuses to do so for us. That’s all I really have to say about this.

What is “fair”? We believe in a free market economy. There is no way to “game” it because by definition a free market has to be free and what arises from it is what is supposed to be.

China has a planned economy. They pick and choose what happens economically and they have a heavy hand in manipulating it.

It honestly sounds like we want to have our cake and eat it too. The free market is the best way to develop a healthy economy, and it does not require the generosity of foreign players to function.

Fundamentally we’re just being rattled by the economic rise of China which is shaking the beliefs of some free market capitalists.