U.S. opens a national security review of TikTok’s acquisition of Musical.ly • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. opens a national security review of TikTok’s acquisition of Musical.ly

#241

Post by mgraczyk » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 7:28 PM UTC

Merrill wrote: post #216

mgraczyk wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this myth that musical.ly was founded in China before, but it's hard to believe if you look at some basic facts. One cofounder worked full time at SAP in SF bay area for several years before and after musical.ly was founded. The other says on his LinkedIn that he was working in Santa Monica for several years on either side of the founding. They lived, worked, and founded the company in CA.

According to Pitchbook https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/149415-13 >Primary Office 16/F, No. 127 Guodao Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai China musical.ly appears to have always had its head office in Shanghai until the acquisition. The fact that it also had significant operations in California doesn't make it a US company. Only those operations are subject to US law and would have to be divested due to disapprova…

> musical.ly appears to have always had its head office in Shanghai until the acquisition.

That's not true. I have not found a specific date, but the Shanghai office did not exist at the time musical.ly was founded. I have not found any references to the Shanghai office from before late 2015.

Re: U.S. opens a national security review of TikTok’s acquisition of Musical.ly

#242

Post by hnuser77 » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #213

hnuser77 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some teachable moments about the soft censorship system are when 1) it misfires, like when a teenager stands around on video with a smile in the general vicinity of a Native American man and has his reputation immediately smeared by multiple national networks and thousands of other highly credentialed professionals, 2) when a dozen major online platforms and infrastructure services "independently" ban the same person…

> when a dozen major online platforms and infrastructure services "independently" ban the same person in a 72 hour period This is a weird complaint. One site bans Alex Jones (after a major news event covered internationally). Media gets wind (likely due to him complaining very loudly about it) and starts asking the other major social networks why they aren't following suit. No conspiracy required, for the same reason…

Bingo; well, I'm not talking about one person in particular, but it goes like this:

"Hey [person at platform company], I'm [person whose social network slightly overlaps with yours but who has more reputation], a journalist at [publication that can instantly shape public opinion on any topic]. I'm doing an article on [bad person], who once said [worst interpretation of anything person has ever said] and has been called [threat to public safety and order] by [prestigious NGO] and is also associated with [tenuously connected group that is even worse]. Are you aware your website is [assumption that company endorses bad person's content]? There has been [mention of thousands of angry and unstable people, implication of social and economic damage] on [social media platform where I myself and my friends have considerable influence] about this."

It's also interesting to think about why something becomes a "news event" in the first place, as if it were something that simply falls from the sky.

Re: U.S. opens a national security review of TikTok’s acquisition of Musical.ly

#243

Post by outuiorew » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

turbo_fart_box wrote: post #152

There are entire sub-genres of lesbians, trans, gays, and all sorts of LGBT people on TikTok. I don't see a ban on the platform

It was only in Turkey, since TikTok has to follow local laws.

Re: U.S. opens a national security review of TikTok’s acquisition of Musical.ly

#244

Post by wnevets » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #207

So HN changed the headline to remove TikTok which is a name I reconized and replaced it with "ByteDance" and "Musical.ly", which I've never heard of before. It was originally displayed on HN the same as it is in the article. From the article, I know that the new headline is more precise. But it's much less informative, I wouldn't have clicked the article under this name.

Wouldn't a more accurate and informative title include "TikTok's owner Beijing ByteDance"

Re: U.S. opens a national security review of TikTok’s acquisition of Musical.ly

#245

Post by homonculus1 » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #236

nullc wrote: post #207

So HN changed the headline to remove TikTok which is a name I reconized and replaced it with "ByteDance" and "Musical.ly", which I've never heard of before. It was originally displayed on HN the same as it is in the article. From the article, I know that the new headline is more precise. But it's much less informative, I wouldn't have clicked the article under this name.

I really wish HN wouldn't do this except for materially incorrect titles. I find myself trying to figure out if a link/discussion is the same one I've already read after the title has been editorialized.

Even a "link changed" or a cross symbol or any kind of indicator would be nice!

Re: U.S. opens a national security review of TikTok’s acquisition of Musical.ly

#246

Post by bilbo0s » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 7:35 PM UTC

molteanu wrote: post #179

tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The false equivalence is strong with this one. In no way shape or form is it even remotely similar.

"Your boy cracked my son's head!" "Your boy started it first. He broke mine's leg!" "Yeah, a cracked head is not even remotely similar to a broken leg!" Moral of the story: Broken legs are normal.

In the world of international relations, there really are no good guys.

But in a world where everyone is a bad guy, hypocrisy can be forgiven, since it keeps other bad guys in check despite its self-serving intent. Hypocrisy, whether European, Russian, American or Chinese, keeps the peace.

Re: U.S. opens a national security review of TikTok’s acquisition of Musical.ly

#247

Post by asveikau » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

hnuser77 wrote: post #186

dv_dt wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the US doesn't hard censor media like China, I'd agree there is something of a soft censorship/ignoring of many topics. And, if you think about US based hard restraints, there are certainly onerous restrictions with rules attached to financial services imposed by the US into foreign nations.

Some teachable moments about the soft censorship system are when 1) it misfires, like when a teenager stands around on video with a smile in the general vicinity of a Native American man and has his reputation immediately smeared by multiple national networks and thousands of other highly credentialed professionals, 2) when a dozen major online platforms and infrastructure services "independently" ban the same person…

[flagged]

Re: U.S. opens a national security review of TikTok’s acquisition of Musical.ly

#248

Post by hart_russell » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

quaquaqua1 wrote: post #169

I am an American-born man of Western European descent. My girlfriend is a Chinese passport holder here on H1B. I am an anarchist. I absolutely do not understand why there is so much hate for Chinese people, Chinese companies, or the Chinese government. Literally everything has flaws, and Western Europe and USA have plenty of them. If you are not willing to say "China does xyz but actually also my country does somethi…

Easy, there's a double standard here: Chinese companies can buy US companies but not the other way around.

Re: U.S. opens a national security review of TikTok’s acquisition of Musical.ly

#249

Post by homonculus1 » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

sol_remmy2 wrote: post #190

inetknght wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these are mainly kids making music videos. They aren't using it to organize campaigns. I think that's a dangerously naive interpretation of the platform (or any platform really), particularly when it involves children and young adult minds.

Have you seen the weird articles on Snapchat Discover? "Why I'm never taking my mom to an x-rated convention again" "How my kitten play fetish makes me feel less alone" "Why I've been dressing like a horse for twenty years" If I had a teenage daughter, I'd feel much more comfortable with her using the Chinese tik-tok than whatever tabloid-level trash Snapchat is pushing these days. Some of these American media compan…

I think you're too worried about that. I saw plenty of weird fetish shit on forums in my teens and I think I turned out okay, plus a preparedness to accept the breadth of weirdness in humanity. The main thing you should care about is teaching your daughter to recognize clickbait and worthless content.

Re: U.S. opens a national security review of TikTok’s acquisition of Musical.ly

#250

Post by throwaway2048 » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #207

So HN changed the headline to remove TikTok which is a name I reconized and replaced it with "ByteDance" and "Musical.ly", which I've never heard of before. It was originally displayed on HN the same as it is in the article. From the article, I know that the new headline is more precise. But it's much less informative, I wouldn't have clicked the article under this name.

This is a completely ridiculous title change, doesn't match the article title, and totally obfuscates the relevance of the article.