ByteDance is the company. tiktok is a global App. And Douyin is Chinese Special version. Chinese government asked Douyin's data (Chinese users), Not the tiktok(already move its data to US,UK,German and Singapore.. in 2020)
Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
431–440 of 445 posts
Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Americans should only be as free as the least free countries? Not a smart move.
Americans should be as free as the government they elect chooses to enforce via law. For decades, the US has been a leader in global policy so there is no reason to think of them helplessly bowing to North Korea in the fu.
in the future.
Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
#433"TikTok is digital fentanyl that’s addicting Americans, collecting troves of their data, and censoring their news." Is the conclusion that all forms of digital fentanyl should be banned or just Chinese ones? Because the reality is there's nothing too exceptional about TikTok's underlying algorithms. Will lawmakers be willing enact legislation against companies marketing similar "digital fentanyl" but that are America…
Exactly. this seems like a boon to the Meta flavor or digital fentanyl
More like the Youtube flavor, since Youtube has an identical product (Youtube Shorts) that won't get banned.
Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
because digital assets have a fundamental difference with material ones. I'm referring to how digital assets can be owned non-exclusively, i.e. we can both have the same data. In contrast material (or physical) assets are exclusive. Either I have it xOR you do, we cannot both own the same thing. Stocks (and other sophisticated goods) are interesting because they mean we each own a fraction of something, even when tha…
That's just a general list of differences between physical and digital things. Trade restrictions on physical goods don't exist due to matters of ownership. > the same stock cannot be owned by multiple people at the same time. This may be an irrelevant tangent, but that's entirely untrue.
clearly I need to learn more about stock ownership; but that would require the opportunity to own stock. And I'm from a secondary/lower socioeconomic-tier from a 3rd tier (third world country). So those opportunities aren't readily available to me.
regardless,
the restrictions on trade of physical goods exists due to matters of ownership over government-level permissions (licenses?) for import/export, taxation, an other such kinds of things. It's ownership over whole countries; that's the ownership at play when considering digital trade restrictions.
Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
#435I wish they'd do this via a slightly different criterion, which IMO would be more fair: ban foreign companies from operating in the US whenever American companies in the same field can't operate in the same way in the foreign company's home country (so TikTok would end up banned here since Twitter, etc. is banned there).
China had concrete laws its local competitors adhere to that Twitter etc elected to not adhere to. Are there concrete laws that local companies adhere to that TikTok can follow besides "don't be Chinese"?
The concrete laws that say things like "you must censor any posts that acknowledge the Tiananmen Square Massacre happened, or that the Uyghur genocide is currently happening" you mean?
I don't think ByteDance would be able to get themselves unbanned under my scheme without the CCP changing its laws, but it's hard to view that as a negative when ByteDance is basically an extension of the CCP.
Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please elaborate on how a law banning a single company is the same as a law that allow companies to comply.
If China is able to ban all western social media because of “law” then per definition any law that stops Chinese social media is also “legit” if we go by the argument that it is okay to ban things if the law says to ban them.
Please elaborate on how a law banning a single company is the same as a law that allow companies to comply.
Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would the US not do the same with TikTok? Millions (?) of Americans have freely chosen to receive and interact with the app, wouldn't their freedom of speech allow them to enjoy the content they choose?
Millions (?) of Americans have freely chosen to use cocaine, wouldn't their freedom of doing what they want with their bodies allow them to enjoy the drug they choose?
Yes but unironically.
Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, sure, ARM just happened to decide to sell 51% of their Chinese subsidiary. I assume they really needed the money, and sold 51% instead of 49% because that 2% was a chunk of change they really needed.
Honestly confused what you're insinuating. They needed to sell that 2% to get the deal done probably, to tempt the buyers.
Are you suggesting that ARM china had so few investors that they had to sell a majority share in order to attract potential purchasers?
Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Vine [...] filled this niche but it was ultimately killed by Facebook (who promoted Tiktok because they didn't want Vine making inroads with their users) and Twitter (by not developing it further). Agreed on the twitter part, but the FB part feels like a pure conspiracy at best, and is just factually provable to be false. For one, Vine was killed off in September 2017, which is the same month that TikTok became ava…
TikTok was available internationally for a very long time already, just under a different name. ‘Early’ TikTok was nothing but a rebrand of musical.ly
No, that wasn't the case. Tiktok already existed as Douyin within China. Musical.ly was an entirely separate company and product. Douyin went truly international as TikTok after acquiring musical.ly.
To add, the acquisition happened in november 2017[0], which is after Vine had already been killed off. Vine had 200mil users as of 2015, while it took musical.ly until May 2017 to get there. Which is also, months after Vine had already been dead, and over half a year after Vine had announced the upcoming shutdown (those numbers and dates are all from the wikipedia pages of the companies mentioned).
0. https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/09/chinas-toutiao-is-buying-m...
Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what this law is about. > In 2018, media reports that Google was working on a prototype for another censored Chinese search engine surfaced, which was met with backlash from some Google employees. The development, called ‘Project Dragonfly,’ was shortly after suspended, according to The Intercept. The US government did not force Google to stop Dragonfly.
Congress called multiple hearings on Dragonfly and many politicians criticized it. China only ever enforced its consistent censorship policies without targeting any foreign company. Doing this you would admit is an aggressive move to target a Chinese company rather than a reciprocal action as the parent insinuated.
> China only ever enforced its consistent censorship policies without targeting any foreign company.
That is patently untrue. China's enforcement of its GFW ban list (which is still an unpublished state secret) has been very focused at specific companies, especially in the earlier days when they didn't just ban everything. CNN, for example, was on the s-list for many years due to Tiananmen Square (ironically, being unblocked later while NyTimes would get on the s-list for publish an at article about Xi's family wealth).
China's censorship policies (again an unpublished state secret) are anything but consistent. They are mostly applied for personal retribution (don't publish articles about the leader's family financial assets) or business advantages (don't let in competitors that would challenge domestic champions).