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

US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 224 posts

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#61

Post by _akhe »

NickC25 wrote: post #21
_akhe wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China bans sites & apps from the West that violate their laws - the ad tracking, monitoring, censorship & influencer/fake news we have here... the funding schemes and market monopolizing that companies like Facebook do in the West is just not legal there. Can you blame them for not wanting it? Companies that don't violate Chinese laws and approach China with realistic deals are allowed to operate there - you can play…

Disclaimer: I worked for, and helped start, a company that contracted with Tsinghua University. The list of demands they had was....well, enormous. We couldn't even say that we were our own company, whenever we faced a client within Tsinghua, we had to tell them that we were an operation owned and run by Tsinghua. Why? Because we weren't Chinese. >* Can you blame them for not wanting it?* No, I don't blame them at al…

> Blizzard didn't "work with" NetEase, they basically gave them the IP and ability to sell the game in China as well as ownership of all servers that host Chinese players.

My dear bro, this is called "working with".

> Microsoft did the same thing with their Office suite and Azure cloud services... because they aren't allowed to independently operate in China.

You're the one actually being manipulative with words here: Microsoft is allowed to sell products in China and they do, by independently operate you might mean "ignore Chinese laws" some of which include the fact that Microsoft is required to share data with our government on a regular basis. Beyond ethics and ad tracking, why would another government allow US-based companies to effectively spy on them?

> They don't allow foreign competition. This creates an uneven playing field.

Again not true, you just have to follow the laws of whatever country you're operating in.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#62

Post by krapp »

mschuster91 wrote: post #46
api wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They realize that engagement farming not-actually-social media is toxic brain rot.

It's more like, they don't want any place on the Internet that's a social network allowing uncensored exchange between Chinese people and the Western sphere of influence.

When they do it, it's totalitarian. But when we do it, it's merely sensible policy.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#63

Post by brigadier132 »

nearbuy wrote: post #60
brigadier132 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is following a tit for tat strategy. Which European companies has the US forced to divest their holdings to justify the action you're proposing?

Which US companies has China forced to divest their holdings?

To operate in China you need to partner with local businesses and give up 50% of the local business. Also many American businesses are simply banned and were effectively forced to divest to recover funds.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#64

Post by brigadier132 »

willcipriano wrote: post #59
brigadier132 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TPP was a strategy to counter China's growing influence, it wouldn't have benefited them.

Been a lot of high minded "strategy" like that. Hasn't really been working out. I don't think China's influence was growing, ours is just shrinking, you can only lose so many wars to farmers before people stop taking you seriously. Also, I don't how you have a TPP with a country that you don't allow to own a website.

I think you are misinformed, China would not have been part of TPP.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#65

Post by throwaway333444 »

_akhe wrote: post #56
throwaway333444 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually you haven’t been able to play WoW in China for a ~year. But that’s largely irrelevant to your point. More specifically Blizzard is able to bring their product to everywhere else in the world. The fact that they choose to “work” with a local partner in China to get access to that market reads more to me like a government run racket / forced rent seeking than anything else. > approach China with realistic deal…

> Actually you haven’t been able to play WoW in China for a ~year Not true: https://www.wowhead.com/news/over-two-million-players-sign-u... Their services are literally live right now if they are taking signups.

Today WoW is unavailable in China. The linked article indicates a return to China which AFAIK is not live yet. My statement is true, and the lack of WoW in China for at least a time period will always be true. But as previously mentioned this point isn’t that important. I just found it amusing that the example you used for a company behaving well in China wasn’t even in China at the time.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#66

Post by [deleted] »

flappyeagle wrote: post #48
elfbargpt wrote: post #47

I'm surprised this passed (in the house at least) at this point in the election cycle. My suspicion is that ByteDance will in fact refuse to divest, and TikTok will get banned. Which I don't think the electorate will like very much

My suspicion is that they will try to divest but the CCP will refuse to let them do it. Thus proving the point behind the bill.

[deleted]

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#67

Post by maxglute »

PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #2

Not always a popular sentiment, but I don't really mind treating a country's companies as that country treats ours. I know this TikTok issue is far more nuanced (who the backers/owners are, how data is treated etc) of course.

Reciprocity would be US mandating a joint venture JV structure like in PRC aka the TikTok Oracle proposal that fell through. Issue is US is uniquly delusional in thinking they can force a foreign company to divest. PRC isn't going around ordering local Boeing/Microsoft branch to divest from US. Or not delusional since they know PRC wouldn't let TIkTok to divest would open up forced divestitures as viable strategy. Hence these TikTok bills efforts are defacto bans.

It's just like coming PRC EV ban, this isn't about reciprocity. It's about US finding out too late that of their inability to compete. PRC EV companies would love JV setup in states, where local US JV partners provide billions in various subsidies like land, tax credits, political muscling etc because they know they can still make cars cheaper. Local JV's aren't just there to rent seek they have to do serious facilitation work.

Eitherway, US will do what she does, TikTok mostly foreign owned anyways, it won't hurt PRC that much. We'll just have to see which US MNC PRC will force to divest to "leave" in response. The other consideration is does TikTok get to migrate all their US data after they leave? If not, would WFOE Tesla Shanhai get to keep their capital equipment when they get kicked out.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#68

Post by _akhe »

throwaway333444 wrote: post #65
_akhe wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually you haven’t been able to play WoW in China for a ~year Not true: https://www.wowhead.com/news/over-two-million-players-sign-u... Their services are literally live right now if they are taking signups.

Today WoW is unavailable in China. The linked article indicates a return to China which AFAIK is not live yet. My statement is true, and the lack of WoW in China for at least a time period will always be true. But as previously mentioned this point isn’t that important. I just found it amusing that the example you used for a company behaving well in China wasn’t even in China at the time.

> the lack of WoW in China for at least a time period

That's a more fair claim, but both goes without saying (because it's what we're talking about) and is still misleading, because and I'll quote the wowhead-

"World of Warcraft has always been popular in China"

Anyone familiar knows WoW has been available in China for many years (they even have a Blizzard China HQ) and Blizzard has been working with with NetEase for years to service that market.

That's true for a lot of other companies, everything from McDonalds to Ford. It's just social media companies whining.

> just found it amusing that the example you used

Intentionally so but could have easily mentioned GM, Microsoft, Boeing, Nike, KFC, Coke, Procter & Gamble, Intel, or Starbucks with their 7000 stores in China alone. Are you seriously claiming that American companies can't operate there? Do basic research and stop watching the news - some of you really can't be helped.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#69

Post by mindslight »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #52
mindslight wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best time to plant a shade tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is today. And realpolitik, I get that both parties work for and benefit from the corporations in their own ways, and aren't too keen on legislation that protects individual rights at the expense of corporate control. I just hate the blatant hypocrisy - this TikTok situation has only come about due to the past two+ decades of regulatory abd…

Yes. Pass the bill that we have now and keep fighting for more.

I question the assumption of "for more". Singling out individual companies based on specific foreign ownership is of a completely different character than making general laws aimed at preserving individual liberty.

The way I see it, going down this path cements continuing centralized control from corporate and government authoritarian synergy - for example the actual mechanism of this bill is targeting the Apple/Google corporate app repositories, because telling individual users that it's illegal to communicate with TikTok is a straightforward first amendment violation.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#70

Post by blowsand »

elfbargpt wrote: post #47

I'm surprised this passed (in the house at least) at this point in the election cycle. My suspicion is that ByteDance will in fact refuse to divest, and TikTok will get banned. Which I don't think the electorate will like very much

Agreed. It is rather alienating to a demographic and large numbers of business owners that both parties desperately want to connect with. I kind of think this will churn in the courts for a long time, and achieve only ill will.
Post reply on HN