TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#401

Post by jchw » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #390

jchw wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a United States citizen, I don’t agree that we’re obligated to play fairly with someone who brazenly refuses to do so for us. That’s all I really have to say about this.

What is “fair”? We believe in a free market economy. There is no way to “game” it because by definition a free market has to be free and what arises from it is what is supposed to be. China has a planned economy. They pick and choose what happens economically and they have a heavy hand in manipulating it. It honestly sounds like we want to have our cake and eat it too. The free market is the best way to develop a hea…

It would not be having our cake and eating it too to show the CCP the door. They don’t need to give us access to their market and we don’t need to give access to ours.

American companies need to go though Chinese entities to do business in China. Why not the reverse?

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#402

Post by admin_account » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

chenzhekl wrote: post #162

jariel wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the EU banned American big tech, they'd be set aback 20 years. Of course where would be a populist revolution. The difference between the EU and US on this matter, is that the EU has almost no substitutes, and they just don't - for whatever reason (there are many) have he will to do them. And of course there's no point - what FB is doing is no different from what a EU-based FB would do.

Do you really think EU is not capable of creating similar services?

From a technical standpoint, no. From a cultural standpoint, yes.

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#403

Post by whoevercares » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #390

jchw wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a United States citizen, I don’t agree that we’re obligated to play fairly with someone who brazenly refuses to do so for us. That’s all I really have to say about this.

What is “fair”? We believe in a free market economy. There is no way to “game” it because by definition a free market has to be free and what arises from it is what is supposed to be. China has a planned economy. They pick and choose what happens economically and they have a heavy hand in manipulating it. It honestly sounds like we want to have our cake and eat it too. The free market is the best way to develop a hea…

China “planned” its tech industry? You gonna be kidding me

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#404

Post by javagram » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

osrec wrote: post #397

zmmmmm wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I'm even more cynical. I don't think it's an accident that Zuck is playing much more friendly to Trump than people may have expected. This would be the perfect quid pro quo. I hate to think it could be happening like that, and it sits purely in conspiracy theory land. However it is completely consistent with the level of corruption from the administration in other areas and amoral approach by Facebook to its…

Well, Tiktok has taken all the younger crowd away from Facebook and Instagram. Your suggestion is not beyond the realms of possibility for a guy like Zuck (I always think back to the dumb f comment he made a few years ago to remind myself of how he views his users).

“A few years ago” was 17 years ago, for reference, when he was a 19 year old college student.

Facebook is working on Reels to compete with TikTok, but I’m sure Zuck would be happy if Trump takes out the competition for him.

There may not be an explicit quid-pro-quo but he’s obviously trying to navigate the political situation to avoid either Democrats or Republicans taking real steps to harm his company, since both are demanding Facebook start altering what users see to promote their political causes.

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#405

Post by albacur » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #390

jchw wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a United States citizen, I don’t agree that we’re obligated to play fairly with someone who brazenly refuses to do so for us. That’s all I really have to say about this.

What is “fair”? We believe in a free market economy. There is no way to “game” it because by definition a free market has to be free and what arises from it is what is supposed to be. China has a planned economy. They pick and choose what happens economically and they have a heavy hand in manipulating it. It honestly sounds like we want to have our cake and eat it too. The free market is the best way to develop a hea…

The U.S. doesn't have purely free market economy; it's regulated to prevent abuse from bad actors and it enters into trade deals to advance its strategic interests. This is true of all countries.

I have mixed feelings about TikTok, but the claim that the U.S. can't protect itself from a hostile trade partner or a security threat because it "believes in a free market economy" is utterly baseless.

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#406

Post by csomar » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

billfruit wrote: post #195

As someone from the third world this leaves a very bad feeling if it happens. I do expect it runs into legal hurdles before that. Neither Apple nor Google have found TikTok problematic enough to delist them from their app stores. Neither is there charges that TikTok may have broken US laws. Banning something which hasn't broken US laws, on arbitrary grounds shouldn't be possible. The President shouldn't have authorit…

There is another possibility: The U.S. government (or Trump) has dirt already on TikTok which might explain why their pressure did work. It's up to speculation why they chose to go this route instead of imploding the whole thing. A possible explanation is preserve Tiktok jobs/app in the U.S. but it became U.S. run and controlled.

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#407

Post by dirtyid » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

albacur wrote: post #388

billfruit wrote: post #195

As someone from the third world this leaves a very bad feeling if it happens. I do expect it runs into legal hurdles before that. Neither Apple nor Google have found TikTok problematic enough to delist them from their app stores. Neither is there charges that TikTok may have broken US laws. Banning something which hasn't broken US laws, on arbitrary grounds shouldn't be possible. The President shouldn't have authorit…

> Chinese policy seems to have not significantly changed in the last 5 years towards the US, but on the other hand US seemed ever more keen and eger to pursue a hostile attitude towards China. For decades, China has blocked U.S. companies from fair competition, reneged on trade deals when it suits them, backed out of industrial partnerships after extracting the IP it deems useful, and generally been a bad trade partn…

The ongoing deterrence hole when it comes to US-China relations in variety of domains has been acknowledged by China watchers consistently in the past 10 years.

The issue is whether current admins' China-hawks tough on China approach is smart and good for long-term US interests or merely counterproductive electioneering / domestic distraction which is... characteristic of behavior when it comes to managing other foreign relations so far. Nvm US has been quietly undermining China with Asia pivot for 10 years - many people are consumed by Trump/Pompeo and previously Bolton/Banning grievance politics because publicly clapping back feels good. Same ppl have no problem recognizing US foreign policy everywhere has been catastrophic for US interests in the last 4 years, but go full smooth brain cheering leading mode because it's China. Like holy shit, it's Pompeo. Folks can pretend/hope broken clock is right twice a day or realize people with bad history of foreign policy is maybe just bad at foreign policy. These are individuals who have no problem shaping America into the enemy it wants to fight.

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#408

Post by javagram » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

m0zg wrote: post #387

em500 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what OP is arguing is fairly straightforward: if TikTok violated actual laws, take them to court, if they didn't, leave them alone. Is the USA supposed to be country that respects the rule of law, or a banana republic directed by the whims of some supreme leader?

The wheels of justice turn too slowly for election interference, which a state controlled company like ByteDance is almost certain to perpetrate. There's even plausible deniability - you could blame it on "algorithms". Succinctly, here's why TikTok will get banned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSTHgoaVtSw This is also why Google, Twitter and Facebook will get their asses reamed at some point if they continue doing…

> The wheels of justice turn too slowly for election interference

The logical solution would to start spinning the wheels faster, not take authoritarian action.

Of course, the FEC right now doesn’t even have a quorum and has only had one for about a month in the last year, due to negligence by the President and Congress. It’s obvious the politicians aren’t that concerned about the “wheels of justice” when it comes to election ethics.

“ Donald Trump nominated James E. Trainor III on September 14, 2017. After he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 19, 2020, the commission's quorum was briefly restored,[8] and one meeting was held online, due to the coronavirus pandemic, on June 18, 2020.[9] A week later, however, Caroline Hunter resigned, with the result that the FEC once again lacked a quorum.[10]”

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#409

Post by quotemstr » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

albacur wrote: post #388

billfruit wrote: post #195

As someone from the third world this leaves a very bad feeling if it happens. I do expect it runs into legal hurdles before that. Neither Apple nor Google have found TikTok problematic enough to delist them from their app stores. Neither is there charges that TikTok may have broken US laws. Banning something which hasn't broken US laws, on arbitrary grounds shouldn't be possible. The President shouldn't have authorit…

> Chinese policy seems to have not significantly changed in the last 5 years towards the US, but on the other hand US seemed ever more keen and eger to pursue a hostile attitude towards China. For decades, China has blocked U.S. companies from fair competition, reneged on trade deals when it suits them, backed out of industrial partnerships after extracting the IP it deems useful, and generally been a bad trade partn…

The problem here isn't TikTok being banned. I couldn't care less about TikTok. The problem here is singling out an individual entity for punishment outside an established framework of laws just because we don't like it. You can be tough on China without becoming China.

Nobody is suggesting that China's trade policy go unchallenged. What I do want is a policy including evidence, recourse, and the possibility of compliance. I have seen no explanation whatsoever of why TikTok is so urgently terrible that we can't deal with whatever it is that the company is doing using rules --- and this strange silence is coming from people ordinarily keen on that old "government of laws, not men" principle. Everything is weird these days.

Re: TikTok’s Chinese owner offers to forego stake to clinch U.S. deal – sources

#410

Post by javagram » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:05 PM UTC

nouveaux wrote: post #396

quantum_state wrote: post #383

The government's behavior should not be allowed in a country of rule of law. We should all wake up to defend our God given right to use apps we like. Guys, please don't fall into the trap of us vs them. The governments are all bullying us, the people. They raised tariff in the name of whatever, yet in reality, they collect more tax and we pay more for goods we need. The same goes with banning apps. The reality is tha…

Or people need to wake up to the security threat. This is not about us vs them. No apps from Australia, Europe or Africa are on the list of banned apps. Its China where in order to do business there, you have to give the government access to your trade secrets and full server access without a warrant. While its possible for any company to succumb to government pressure for unreasonable access, it is a prerequisite to…

This isn’t about Chinese control, considering the President dismissed allowing Microsoft to buy the app.

Microsoft is a US company.