21–30 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump is signaling that Microsoft is his lackey and Microsoft is signaling in the affirmative. That cloud business from the Defense department sure is lucrative.
Something like that. Plus remember when Zoom was a national security threat? You know with that Chinese guy in charge, the Chinese servers, the censoring on behalf of the CCP ... Funny how that all disappeared when Zoom got in bed with Oracle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Am I being naive? Possibly. Axios[0] quotes Trump as saying: “A very substantial portion of that price is going to have to come into the Treasury of the United States. Because we’re making it possible for this deal to happen. Right now they don’t have any rights, unless we give it to them. So if we’re going to give them the rights, it has to come into this country. It’s a little bit like the landlord/tenant”. Make…
I'm probably being stupid, but how is that not absolutely terrifying for US companies? The deal seems to be that all acquisition of foreign companies has to have a kickback to the treasury because they could always just ban the company you bought otherwise?
Has everyone really forgotten Saddam's WMDs so quickly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read "providing proper economic benefits to the United States, including the United States Treasury" as just meaning Microsoft will make money (and hence pay tax) on this. Am I being naive?
Apparently yes: A transaction of the type the president envisions could also prove more expensive than the one Microsoft described on Sunday. Trump said Monday that part of the amount paid to buy TikTok would have to come to the U.S. Treasury Department because it would be making the deal possible. “It’s a little bit like the landlord/tenant; without a lease the tenant has nothing, so they pay what’s called ‘key mone…
Well, yes, because he's spent his entire career doing that and now he's President. See the case the NY AG is building against him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something like that. Plus remember when Zoom was a national security threat? You know with that Chinese guy in charge, the Chinese servers, the censoring on behalf of the CCP ... Funny how that all disappeared when Zoom got in bed with Oracle.
Zoom is of course still a national security threat.
Calling nearly everything on or related to the internet a matter of "national security" is to demand that everything be overblown.
It continues to be damning that the leadership of Microsoft did not buy Vine [1] from Twitter in 2017 for pennies on the dollar before Vine was shutdown. Vine was very popular, and a lot of people were very disappointed when it was shutdown back when Twitter was bleeding a lot cash. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine_(service)
"Microsoft fully appreciates the importance of addressing the President’s concerns. It is committed to acquiring TikTok subject to a complete security review and providing proper economic benefits to the United States, including the United States Treasury." => So US Treasury will give MS money to buy TikTok (US market only)? And they have limited time to make this deal? So US Treasury will effectivelly own the US Tik…
And people were laughing at Putin in 2012-2013 when he was saying in an interview that the Internet was CIA-controlled, not to mention the derogatory Western press headlines of when Putin's cronies took over control over VKontakte the same way as the US military-industrial complex is taking over control over the parts of TikTok they care about right now.
Where is EU in this embarrassment? Suppose Margrethe Vestager called and said TikTok, you are banned unless you let a "very european" company take over your business? And by the way. We would like a cut. And would the US still being able to say "national security" if it was fully owned by German business running on servers in some Swiss mountain?
This would make sense if the EU had any company remotely capable of being able to afford this.
Where is EU in this embarrassment? Suppose Margrethe Vestager called and said TikTok, you are banned unless you let a "very european" company take over your business? And by the way. We would like a cut. And would the US still being able to say "national security" if it was fully owned by German business running on servers in some Swiss mountain?
Wouldn't do this make sense for Facebook? I would like to see a European company owning the European side of Facebook.
I really like Silicon Valley and their initiative, but again and again American companies have shown that they cannot be trusted with European data (maybe USA data either, but that is an internal matter of the USA).
Facebook, Twitter and other social networks are the new public squares for social discussion. Even more now that many people works from home.
I can understand USA decision on this matter (not the way as it has been imposed in a short time-line and without much feedback). And I can see that Europe not acting in the same way damages European citizens capability to regulate their own public spaces.
I also see anti-globalization as a risk for many other types of products and services. A healthy global market has provided growth and stability.
Meanwhile digital social networks have been a source of radicalization and manipulation of citizens from all around the world.
A different approach is needed to product shoes or phones that to provide citizens with public spaces.