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

#691

Post by sigstoat » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

bigpumpkin wrote: post #139

baybal2 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very much that. Beijing is running out of big "American" companies it can retaliate against. No Facebook in China, no Tviter in China, all major American brands are effectively franchises, or joint ventures, so they will be shooting their own business in the foot. They can of course order those Chinese joint venture owners to appropriate the American stake in their corporate entities, but those state never been high…

How about those 30 films Hollywood exports to China every year?

not much filming going on at the moment, i think? if hollywood is bleeding out, it probably won't notice being kicked in the teeth.

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

#692

Post by tom-_- » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

schuke wrote: post #628

tom-_- wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FB, Google etc are also blocked when using a Chinese telecom's SIM card on "US soil" so what is the difference here?

TikTok blocks itself. Others are blocked by the government. Name another major application/social network that does the same?

I don't know of any but I also wouldn't be surprised if there were. The NBA and American movie production companies already censor in the US as concession to access the Chinese markets. Not arguing this is a good thing mind you, just that it may not be unprecedented.

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

#693

Post by boring_twenties » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

ptx wrote: post #671

apatters wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's exactly how South Korea and many other countries developed (and continue to develop) as well. The difference here is that China is positioning itself as a political rival to the United States. America is under no obligation to help its rivals develop. Prior to Xi Jinping's belligerent foreign poljcy America was considerably more welcoming to Chinese companies. You reap what you sow.

> America is under no obligation to help its rivals develop. Right. As long as we acknowledge that this is what's going on, so the rest of the world can feel free to just laugh at the US the next time they claim some grandiose moral high ground in their petty squabble to keep their rival down.

You think liberal democracy (however imperfect) vs. aggressive totalitarianism is merely a "petty squabble?"

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

#694

Post by ksec » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 11:04 PM UTC

wildrhythms wrote: post #429

albacur wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 rationale in your comment is unconvincing to me. If Tiktok is breaking the law, that should come to light and be actioned like any other company breaking the law; likewise TOS violations on respective app stores. I haven't seen any reports to suggest that Tiktok is breaking U.S. law, have you? And if the rationale is, as you suggested, a retaliation against 'bad behavior for decades', what precedent would banning…

I am reading a lot of comment that assumes Free Trading on the Internet. ( And to an extend that may be true )

I am guessing everyone working in the Software and Internet Industry are so used to Absolute Free Trading, where you could have someone using your SaaS from any parts of the world, with Discovery And Distribution Channel infrastructure in the whole world half sorted out. No one realise Importing and Exporting of real products and services have gazillions of restrictions.

US can stop the import and export of certain products or services from certain countries on any grounds, due to protection ideal ( These deals has always been in place ) Whether that is Food, Steel, Raw Materials or even Services. Using either Standards, Safety Policy, Tariff or other means necessary, or in other words, excuses. The same is true to EU, and especially China, who has been playing this game may be better than anyone.

That would be akin to US ( or in fact any countries ) working in China are required set up a Chinese JV. ( You can read up on what is happening to ARM China CEO ). So this is a policy change not a change of law. And even that is not entirely true, because under the current policy there are different rules to State Companies, and Chinese company can no longer prove they are not a state company. ( May be that is the part they break the law )

And in case someone ask why you have one specific set of policy for China? I would have answered would you expect to have the same policy for everyone including North Korea?

I view this as a trade issues, and China are no longer welcome to trade with US in many front, including its internet services. And in all fairness no one should be blaming US about it.

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

#695

Post by chrischen » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 11:59 PM UTC

albacur wrote: post #405

chrischen wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a believer in more free than planned market economies, I don't think it's necessary for the US to stick its fingers in places to ensure things fail, just as I don't believe it was necessary to sabotage the USSR to ensure their inevitable failure. I believe our system is superior to what China has, and frankly if we meddle with it it de-legitimizes our claims to our superior system.

We do in fact have a more free market economy, and we definitely do not do retaliatory trade policies to other countries with unequal trade imbalances like we are doing to China. In fact, in a free market, which is the default, there is no such thing as a trade imbalance. We buy cheap labor from China, but they are paying the price on the higher margin parts (IP, technology, brands). They buy the silicon that merely gets assembled in China, they make the iPhone for maybe $100-$150 in labor, and then pay Apple the remainder just to ship the item back to itself (that's why luxury goods are heavily taxed in China). If you ask me China's getting the crappy end of the deal. The reason why we've been getting push back is because the lower-skilled workers in America are in fact losing out, but the information and technology jobs have been gaining against China. But frankly, cheap Chinese workers are just a temporary stop gap to automation (if you didn't lose your job to cheap foreign labor, you'd be losing it to a cheap domestic robot).

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

#696

Post by throwaway69123 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 12:27 AM UTC

flywheel wrote: post #685

throwaway69123 wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes her data, meta data about your network, devices etc. Just because you arent a target based on that data, doesnt mean someone isnt.

Her "data" is mostly liking cute dog videos. China can have that data for all I care. Meta data about my network, devices? If China really wants to know that I'm on Spectrum internet, and have a few other devices connected, sure, go ahead. I monitor my network and haven't seen any suspicious traffic that would worry me.

They dont want your data, but your data being worthless isnt an argument. You arent the target.

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

#697

Post by neokrish » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 1:48 AM 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…

This comment isn’t based on facts. I suggest you read this (https://www.lawfareblog.com/tiktok-and-law-primer-case-you-n...) to get the legal basis right. You are free to disagree or call out US in an emotional tirade, but have the facts right on why the President can make these decisions.

Additionally, painting China as a mere victim here ignores the complexity of the geopolitical tensions we are currently facing.

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

#698

Post by elSidCampeador » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 2:03 AM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #558

elSidCampeador wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can be tough on China without becoming China. Sovereign nations have always reserved the right to decide what is allowed on their shores. That they disallow an entity from operating on their shores does not mean that they have "become China".

You are conflating rule of law and sovereignty.

The rule of law exists because of a country's sovereignty. Sometimes, the two must be conflated.

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

#699

Post by alasdair_ » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 2:18 AM UTC

glaive123 wrote: post #675

ptx wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US companies similarly have to comply with secret orders[1] from the US government, so I agree with the parent that it looks pretty much the same from the perspective of us foreigners. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter

What you have shown is in no way, by any stretch of the imagination, close or equivalent. It is not even close, by a country mile. Taken from the article you shared: "By law, NSLs can request only non-content information, for example, transactional records and phone numbers dialed, but never the content of telephone calls or e-mails." "Moreover, a recipient of the NSL may still challenge the nondisclosure provision i…

An NSL often includes a prohibition against even telling a companies own counsel that the NSL was served and for many years the FBI didn’t tell people this was even possible to challenge (until a 2008 appellate court ruling). Even after that point, barely one in fifty thousand letters even get to the point of a court hearing. It’s de factor quite similar.

In addition, the legal challenge usually happens AFTER the letter is complied with, which makes it moot.

These letters can, and do, end up causing companies to fold (e.g. lavabit) if they refuse to comply.

Like many other national security issues (such as FISA court rubber stamps) there are theoretical checks and balances that do not tend to do much checking or balancing in practice.

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

#700

Post by alasdair_ » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 2:23 AM UTC

glaive123 wrote: post #678

ptx wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the company may eventually be allowed to tell us after they fact that they surrendered out data to the US government is not much of a comfort. In any case, I'm not sure that any of the protections apply to foreigners (the criticism is all about how they might accidentally target Americans) so for those who are neither Chinese nor American citizens, it makes no difference. I would be happy to be completely wrong…

> That the company may eventually be allowed to tell us after they fact that they surrendered out data to the US government is not much of a comfort. Did you read my comment? The request can be fought in court, and the request does not give them access to actual contents. For example, they can NOT get the contents of an email. Are you not aware that Apple has beaten the FBI several times in court and did not have to…

>Are you not aware that Apple has beaten the FBI several times in court and did not have to unlock an iPhone

This is not quite what happened. In the most famous cases, the FBI wanted (effectively) for Apple to build them a back donor that they could use as they wished. Apple argued that while it was legal for the government to demand information with a warrant, it was not legal to force programmers to write code for the FBI under threat of legal action.

Moreover the case was dismissed after the FBI admitted they could already access the phone in question, having purchased an exploit for it from a vendor.