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

Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#761

Post by asadotzler »

turquoisevar wrote: post #335
efitz wrote: post #179

I see the feedback here is overwhelmingly negative. My biggest problem is that it’s too narrowly targeted. I have worked for several US businesses with global footprints and working with China (and some other countries) required whole or part ownership of the business by entities within that nation. So we partnered with businesses in China to set up and operate our infra, and had to manage everything through contract…

I see variations of this argument pop up in this debate, which always confuses me. I’d expect the takeaway to be “That’s bad, so we shouldn’t do it” instead of “Hold my beer and let me show you how we can follow their example.” I always thought that the point was to not be like authoritarian countries.

Ever study game theory? Apparently not.

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#762

Post by nine_k »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #625

If the security angle is the real issue here, how would "divestment" improve security here at all? Tiktok engineering in the US is like 90% chinese H1B holders, they speak mandarin at work broadly across the company including in work meetings to the extent that many people say you can't work there without mandarin knowledge. The codebase is massive. I don't think it is possible for any amount of auditing or reviewing…

I think this is the point, and the outcome desired by the bill's proponents. There's no way to meaningfully achieve separation, so the only viable way to comply is to largely cease active operations. Maybe access to previously shared / liked content would remain, without a way to discover, access, or post new content, or register a new account.

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#764

Post by [deleted] »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #617
benced wrote: post #615

The WTO allows China to ban American social networks - which would otherwise be required to be allowed under its general principle of parity - because of its "public morals" exception ( https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/repertory_e/g4_... ). I personally don't think that exception should exist and I'm OK banning it solely on trade parity grounds.

China doesn't actually ban American social networks, not officially at least. They just don't work for some reason due to technical issues. China has never said "we ban Facebook and Google", you just wake up one day and they aren't working anymore.

[deleted]

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#765

Post by torginus »

Aloisius wrote: post #305
returningfory2 wrote: post #38

The work "ban" is in scare quotes for a reason. The law doesn't ban TikTok. Rather, it bans TikTok from having Chinese owners. If the law stands, the end result will likely be that TikTok will be sold to US owners, rather than TikTok going away. It's surprising to me that this this pretty significant distinction has been glossed over both in media reporting and in general comments here on HN. To be clear, I'm not sup…

The law doesn't ban them from having Chinese owners. It bans American companies from providing services that distribute, maintain or update any sufficiently popular apps substantially owned or controlled by foreign adversaries. TikTok could host APKs from CCP headquarters if they want to.

does that mean that it could be used to basically block any app made by the Chinese?

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#766

Post by [deleted] »

matthest wrote: post #537
ok123456 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't the US prove it's better than China by its self-consistent actions with its espoused virtues of freedom of the press?

Yes, but at some point you have to know where to draw the line. That line should be national security. If China is indeed receiving data from TikTok, the future isn't going to be fun, especially with AI tech heating up. Truth is, when China benefits, the Han Chinese people benefit. Every other ethnicity? Uncertain. When the US benefits, a variety of ethnicities benefit. The US is now diverse enough where it must work…

[deleted]

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#769

Post by number_man »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #753
georgeecollins wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A US company would never be allowed to own any kind of social media company in China. You can't own a broadcast station in the US as a non-US citizen. Rupert Murdoch had to become a US citizen to buy Fox. I don't know if I agree with this but you can't say there is no precedent for it in the US or in China.

To be fair, China never claimed to be the bastion of free market capitalism. America did. Still does. And now it’s banning and regulating superior products off the market.

> America did. Still does.

Where and when did America claim that?

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#770

Post by ramblenode »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #661
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China doesn't actually ban American social networks, not officially at least. They just don't work for some reason due to technical issues. China has never said "we ban Facebook and Google", you just wake up one day and they aren't working anymore.

They could operate there if they submitted themselves to Chinese government censorship (aka "local laws"). Google pulled out because it refused to. Facebook really wanted to (Zuck even made a trip there to talk to Chinese officials) but ultimately decided (correctly) that doing so would greatly hurt it in the US/Europe. Same for Twitter (pre-Elon).

Another important detail that has been burried in this discussion is that in the late aughts and early 10s there was a lot of domestic political pressure against US companies building products that could facillitate Great Firewall censorship. At the time that was a bigger concern than being allowed into the Chinese market.

All the talk of a digital services trade war/import ban ignores that US tech companies were facing a de facto export ban from the US side by being prohibited from complying with Chinese regulations.

Post reply on HN