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

U.S. investors, Trump close in on TikTok deal with China

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 802 posts

Re: U.S. investors, Trump close in on TikTok deal with China

#571

Post by lmm »

tinyhouse wrote: post #206
volleyball wrote: post #41

So Larry Ellison just took over Paramount group which is now looking to bid for Warner Brothers and CNN. And now Ellison is going to take over TikTok. Paramount(being run by Larry Ellison's son) is looking to install the pro-israel-propagandist who has variously masqueraded as a liberal, a conservative and anti-woke free-speech champion, Bari Weiss[1] as CBS's editor-in-chief or co-president[2]. It also bears mention…

What's the problem with being pro-israel? Everyone needs to be pro-whatever-you-prefer? I'm pro-israel too.

Did you miss the news that they're conducting a genocide?

Re: U.S. investors, Trump close in on TikTok deal with China

#572

Post by clemailacct1 »

amatecha wrote: post #558
OhioMan2943 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protocols are good- but respectfully at this point fediverse is basically a transgender support group.

What are you saying? Fediverse is bad because scary transgenders?

They aren’t saying that - and you know they aren’t. They’re also correct.

Fediverse, in my actual experience, is overwhelmingly filled with hyper left leaning echo chamber content that I’m not interested in.

Re: U.S. investors, Trump close in on TikTok deal with China

#573

Post by clemailacct1 »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #350

Is this a coup by conservative government to gain control of this social network to promote it's ideologies? first Twitter, now Tiktok, both controlled by conservative interests?

Sounds like you preferred it when it was controlled by liberal interests.

Re: U.S. investors, Trump close in on TikTok deal with China

#575

Post by BlackjackCF »

mullingitover wrote: post #494
gpt5 wrote: post #205

Key details: 1. New, US-specific TikTok App, separate from the main TikTok app in content and users. 2. 80% owned by a U.S. investor consortium led by Oracle, Silver Lake, and Andreessen Horowitz, 20% by Bytedance. 3. Board will include one U.S. government–appointed director. 4. All U.S. user data would sit on Oracle infrastructure in the US. 5. Algorithm will be initially licensed, but has to be reengineered to comp…

This seems like the microwaved corpse of the original 2020 deal. Bytedance keeps all the IP, sells Oracle the nearly worthless right to operate the US infra. They can't even call their franken-app Tiktok. The US user data already sits in the US but they'll expect everyone to forget about that so they can brag about this token win. They'll probably get what they really want, which is an admin console for the algorithm…

Wait the US version can’t even be called TikTok?

Re: U.S. investors, Trump close in on TikTok deal with China

#576

Post by amatecha »

clemailacct1 wrote: post #572
amatecha wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you saying? Fediverse is bad because scary transgenders?

They aren’t saying that - and you know they aren’t. They’re also correct. Fediverse, in my actual experience, is overwhelmingly filled with hyper left leaning echo chamber content that I’m not interested in.

I know they aren't? The person hinted at something but didn't say anything concrete, so I don't actually know what they're saying, which is why I asked them to clarify.

I've been using mastodon for nearly 10 years. Fediverse, in my actual experience, is overwhelmingly a really good place to meet and chat with interesting, friendly people. Follow and engage with cool people and you'll have a good time. If you go looking for what you don't like, you'll find it, because it's there just like anywhere on the net. The difference is you don't have to see stuff you don't want to see, because the software and protocol have features that allow this. I'm on a pretty small server and we all are pretty much on the same page about what we expect our social interactions to be like. You know you can just filter out content, right? Your server can totally block or defederate from servers that have objectionable content, too (by whatever your collective definition of "objectionable" is). It works pretty well if you use it the way it's designed to be used.

Re: U.S. investors, Trump close in on TikTok deal with China

#577

Post by mullingitover »

gexla wrote: post #552
mullingitover wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like the microwaved corpse of the original 2020 deal. Bytedance keeps all the IP, sells Oracle the nearly worthless right to operate the US infra. They can't even call their franken-app Tiktok. The US user data already sits in the US but they'll expect everyone to forget about that so they can brag about this token win. They'll probably get what they really want, which is an admin console for the algorithm…

It will be interesting to see how this plays out though. People follow the money. Investors wouldn't be interested if they didn't see the value. If the new app can snag the network effects, then it will win. What is TikTok worth without the US audience?

The buyers are so absurdly wealthy that it’s not really wealth anymore, it’s power. They’re simply trading some of their dragon hoard of power for some other form of it. These people are above pedestrian worries about ROI.

Re: U.S. investors, Trump close in on TikTok deal with China

#578

Post by Vegenoid »

knome wrote: post #547
palmotea wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are we going to be putting government-appointed directors on all social media companies? That wouldn't be a bad thing. How good has unchecked Zuckerberg been for us, really? > Or just the one that used-to-be-Chinese? Or the one where there's some level to force on them, like here. If Zuckerberg starts needing government cash to keep Facebook going, I'd expect a similar deal.

>That wouldn't be a bad thing The government should be the government, and corporations should be corporations. Nothing good will come of having them bleed together. Like church and state, you keep them separate for the good of both.

> Like church and state, you keep them separate for the good of both.

No, not for the good of both - for the good of the people. It is demonstrably beneficial for those in power in government and megacorps to conspire and consolidate that power, it enables them to further control and extract from the populace. It is the people that should be invested in keeping them separate.

Re: U.S. investors, Trump close in on TikTok deal with China

#579

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

nikkwong wrote: post #545
glenstein wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is there something so overwhelmingly devious about the TikTok format in particular that the government has to supervise it? Well, yes, for starters. I think there's a pretty strong consensus from people on all sides that there's no more addictive algorithm than the TikTok one. It's the beneficiary of powerful network effects, it created those effects for itself with a superior app, but nevertheless it is a distingui…

> but a culturally dominant app being leveraged by an authoritarian state goes in the not good colunm. I think political scholars will debate on what the net effect of this is actually going to be. As in, are we better off with the GOP or the CCP controlling the algorithm? Certainly, the CCP has anti west incentives that the GOP does not, like trying to confuse us as to how we should feel about protecting Taiwan. But…

> CCP has anti west incentives that the GOP does not

The GOP wants to destroy the west even more than the CCP, yes.

Re: U.S. investors, Trump close in on TikTok deal with China

#580

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

LadyCailin wrote: post #466
kelnos wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Trump wants a proxy so he can continue to influence the direction TikTok takes. He wants easier access to data so he can go after his political opponents, as well as get things censored he doesn't like. Of course, this would all be possible without someone on the board, but it can't hurt, and likely will help.

If TikTok removes something, would the fact that there’s a government representative on the board give standing for a first amendment claim? Normally private companies aren’t required to furnish you with first amendment rights, but if one could argue that, if not for the board representative, they might not have prevented that speech, then perhaps you would have standing.

When has this government give a single care about free speech or the constitution or even the law in general?
Post reply on HN