As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing. If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
As much as the US government would like people to believe otherwise, things like laws goes out the window pretty quickly when it comes to geopolitics. This isn't a new thing in the US either. Maybe just more people are realizing it recently.
As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing. If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
It's not clear that the president's action is legal, but there are laws such as those empowering CFIUS to review acquisitions of US companies by foreign buyers (in this case, musical.ly) for any national security implications.
These national security implications are probably far-fetched, but there's some theoretical basis for action here...
no american tech ceo is getting killed because of a minor dispute like this why does everyone on HN think we're in some low budget spy movie
What makes you think that? The Russian government just poisoned another opposition thinker, these things are not beyond the pale. North Korea hired a couple of pretty girls to kill a renegade brother or somesuch in public . China has disappeared people over just a few wrong words If I were in that position I'd make sure I have at least a couple bodyguards, and good ones at that
Worlds of difference between those countries and functioning democracies.
As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing. If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
I'm not defending it, but there is a legal basis. CFIUS[1] laws give the president authority to close down foreign businesses under certain circumstances. (This is not to say "it's completely legal" - there are a bunch of ways this could be challenged).
I am highjacking your comment to express my confusion about this dispute. Not that it exists, but on what grounds it exists. Has TikTok done something that is materially different and worse from what, for example, Facebook has? Or is it only that they do similar things, but they originate from China?
The stated issue is that TikTok may share American user data with China and that there’s not any real way for the US to prevent this possibility. So it’s seen as a national security issue that the Chinese govt could track Americans. TikTok has insisted that there’s no way that user data could be shared with the Chinese govt but I think US regulation bodies and intelligence do not buy it.
Sure, but then can all apps that share data with China? Make it clear what apps need to do?
As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing. If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
There is a law that the President purports authorizes this; there is dispute as to whether the Presidential action is within the law.
If I were TikTok I would move my international operations to a European country that was friendly to me and then wait until the anti-China sentiment in the US settled and then try again. Rather that than force-selling the US part at a bargain price. Europe would love a social media giant that could match those of the US. And just behaved better than the US ones when it came to taxes and data privacy ...
If the US is really after TikTok that would probably be futile? Like when they’re after ZTE and Huawei.
It is clearly futile in the current environment but who knows in a couple of years.
Unlike maybe Huawei, TikTok tried to play ball with the US. As far as I can see they were aiming to spin off the international part of TikTok as a US firm, IPOed on the US stock markets. That is why they hired Americans as CEO, developers, managers, board members ...
I think you need to update your knowledge of the polls, as much as you may dislike Trump, he isn't down by 10+ points any more. Regardless, the media has convinced people that only the Republicans and Trump want to see something done about TikTok, but, in fact, there are plenty of Democrats who are also wary of TikTok. Maybe they don't want an outright ban, but they want something done. But since that doesn't garner…
Rapidly becoming an issue? The US has been ignoring China’s burgeoning power for 50 years and allowed US CEOs to get gazillion dollar payouts by shipping American manufacturing jobs to China. That doesn’t change the fact that 1) an isolated spasm against TikTok accomplishes nothing if not part of a broad and permanent portfolio of initiatives, 2) whether Trump wins or loses this election he doesn’t give a shit about…
Vitriol aside, I suggest you adopt a more objective view of politics, instead of allowing your personal emotions to guide your view of governmental affairs. For one, TikTok is not the target, it is just the first domino of many, intended to lay the groundwork of how the government will deal with similar cases in the future. Secondly, you should at least make an attempt to not project your personal bias onto others - unless you somehow have firsthand knowledge of what goes on in the mind of the president, I'd hesitate to take you seriously, especially considering your implication that the half of the country that voted for him relates to dumb, lazy, and corrupt people. Finally, I have no idea what keeps Trump awake at night, but it is clear to not only to him, but also Xi Jinping, the military establishment, and intelligence agencies, the subversive capability of Chinese intellectual labor and services. Whether or not they'll pull the trigger on utilizing those capabilities is yet to be seen, but I imagine it must be stressful knowing that at any time, a foreign government can capture insane amounts of data on every US citizen who has the app, and their intentions will likely not align with ours.
I think he's toast. Who would want to work for a guy who has a track record of jumping ship in the face of trouble?
I'm not sure you can blame him personally for the troubles... I mean it was pretty difficult to forsee, and almost impossible to mitigate a geopolitical war over your company...
I'm definitely not blaming him. I'm observing that he's calling it quits instead of helping his team weather the storm, and that as an employee, I would look disfavorably upon a manager who has previously left their team in the lurch when they most needed a leader.
As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning. What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing. If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
I'm not defending it, but there is a legal basis. CFIUS[1] laws give the president authority to close down foreign businesses under certain circumstances. (This is not to say "it's completely legal" - there are a bunch of ways this could be challenged). [1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-co...
Do those certain circumstances apply here? Shouldn’t there be a legal check from the judiciary?