Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 723 posts

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

#461

Post by ericfrenkiel »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #277
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…

Not that it justifies our behavior, but I can’t help but cringe a bit when considering how China locks American companies out of its market but expects better access for Chinese companies in the American market. America-Chinese relations started going downhill in 2009 when China thought it prudent to start blocking most Americans services, America just took a decade to follow up with similar bad behavior.

[flagged]

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

#462

Post by [deleted] »

dgellow wrote: post #344
solarhoma wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Apple have not delisted tiktok because China is a huge market for the companies. They are playing the part of Switzerland.

> They are playing the part of Switzerland. What does that even mean?

[deleted]

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

#463

Post by pldr1234 »

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 someone from a country that has seen the first hand effects of Chinese influence on critical levels of government and social influence:

This leaves a very good feeling if it happens.

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

#464

Post by hhsuey »

MangoCoffee wrote: post #374

Some people here think TikTok is a fad. I used to think FB is a fad but 16 years later. FB is still here. Not as shiny as it used to be but enough to make billions. I don't know if TikTok is a fad and you don't either. If TikTok last more than 10 years. It already make back its cost and some more. Heck, Snap is still around and it used to be a meme stock on WallStreetBets.

Agreed. Fad is a bit too much. However, maybe 5 or 10 more years. I think more and more people are moving away each year. It seems like it's my (older generation) that uses it.

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

#465

Post by rat9988 »

katzgrau wrote: post #431
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.

I said if it's a matter of national security. > TikTok is not a national security problem, no more than Whatsapp or Telegram or Skype is a national security problem. Yeah, you don't actually know that. What we don't know is the most consequential for us. China is ambitious and is clearly engaged in a long game against the US. We should watch our backs, no apologies necessary.

From an outsider view, all I see in this thread is the US constantly attacking china and accusing it of what they are doing to them.

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

#466

Post by archsurface »

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…

[flagged]

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

#467

Post by BoiledCabbage »

KoftaBob wrote: post #83
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hypocrisy in YC isn't this. It's that people argue the virtues of "free-markets" while simultaneously arguing the most valuable thing any business should build is a "moat". It the utter acknowledgment that avoiding/prevent competition is the way to be successful, while arguing that free markets enforce competition. Its blatantly obvious that network effects, exclusivity contracts and monopolies exist. And well an…

I think you’re conflating a “free market” with a “perfectly competitive market”. By and large, the US is a free market with your obvious government regulations. However, it’s not a perfectly competitive market because of the things you mentioned. Because a true “perfectly competitive market” is almost impossible to achieve, no nation’s economy is, but some are closer to it than others. Perfect competition benefits th…

100% agreed. I"m using however somehow I feel most of HN doesn't see this.

The issue is between how the term "free market" is defined and how it's used. My usage above is how it's commonly used - as meaning a "competitive market" - which as you mention is completely wrong.

A truly competitive market benefits consumers and society overall. A completely free market on the other hand benefits rent seeking and is a drain on society.

Free markets naturally tend towards anti-competetive rent-seeking behaviors. The best thing you can do for a market economy is to ensure it stays a competitive market. There will always be inefficiencies in markets which will accrue towards companies - but the amount of excess rent-seeking that flows to companies needs to be actively minimized.

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

#468

Post by georgeburdell »

_6fmb wrote: post #286
dkobia wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I agree and being from a "third world" country myself, I can still remember China banning Facebook and Google in 2009/2010. Everyone has had to bend over backwards to gain access to the Chinese market while giving them free reign to the rest of the world.

No they didn't, both Facebook and Google decided to quit themselves. Remember Dragonfly? Google just tried to get back into China THIS YEAR and was blocked by the US government. It's the US that's closing access to China not the other way around.

> Remember Dragonfly? Google just tried to get back into China THIS YEAR and was blocked by the US government.

Could you substantiate this claim? Regarding China and Dragonfly, I only remember there being employee and governmental criticism, but no outright ban from doing business in China: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/27/google-...

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

#469

Post by balola »

khuey wrote: post #303
balola wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When billions of people believe something, it will become a "fact". Right now the public opinion in China (not mine) is that India and America are hypocritical bullies and abusing the "national security" excuse, while China "never banned" any foreign web services, those "simply refused to comply with Chinese laws regarding terrorism" and their "inaccessibility" totally justified. You see, here's the logical trap, Tik…

Why should US policy makers care what Chinese public opinion is?

Don't have to, but unless the policy is seperate the people and the party and win over the people.

https://www.state.gov/communist-china-and-the-free-worlds-fu...

>He was a brilliant student of China, a fierce cold warrior, and a tremendous admirer of the Chinese people, just as I think we all are.

>We must also engage and empower the Chinese people – a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party.

>So to somehow think that we ought to ignore the voices of the people of China seems to me the wrong approach... But it seems to me we would dishonor ourselves and the people of China if we ignored them.

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

#470

Post by albacur »

_6fmb wrote: post #286
dkobia wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I agree and being from a "third world" country myself, I can still remember China banning Facebook and Google in 2009/2010. Everyone has had to bend over backwards to gain access to the Chinese market while giving them free reign to the rest of the world.

No they didn't, both Facebook and Google decided to quit themselves. Remember Dragonfly? Google just tried to get back into China THIS YEAR and was blocked by the US government. It's the US that's closing access to China not the other way around.

Wrong, Facebook was blocked in China following the July 2009 Ürümqi riots because Facebook refused to release information about Xinjiang independence activists.

In March 2009, China blocked access to Google's YouTube due to footage showing Chinese security forces beating Tibetans. Access to other Google online services was denied to users arbitrarily.

The search engine remained operational under the condition that the government could filter the search results. In January 2010, Google announced that, in response to a Chinese-originated hacking attack on them and other US tech companies, they were no longer willing to censor searches in China and would pull out of the country completely.

Also, the government didn't "block" Dragonfly. Google terminated the project after its own employees protested it and politicians criticized it.

(All the above from Wikipedia either as direct quotes or paraphrased for brevity.)

Post reply on HN