Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 224 posts

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#81

Post by NickC25 »

usrnm wrote: post #26
NickC25 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the message actually is "The government only wants your personal data harvested by companies that aren't run by an enterprise operated by actors from a hostile foreign government which itself is hellbent on taking America's place in the global economic and soft power hierarchy"

So competition is suddenly a bad thing when you're losing? Okay

from the POV of the incumbent, yes, competition is a bad thing when you are losing.

The US government doesn't want a foreign country in control of the communication platform its youth are using. The Chinese government doesn't want that, either.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#82

Post by api »

krapp wrote: post #78
kelnos wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really tired of arguments like this. The US (and West as a whole) are not a bunch of angels, of course. But the kind of censorship, state-mandated propaganda, and market control you see from China is not even remotely comparable to the situation in the West. Equating the two is at best uninformed, at worst disingenuous or actively malicious.

Not yet, but this is an obvious step in the same direction, "banning" a social media platform to prevent exposure to foreign ideas. It's difficult not to assume the motives are similar, a need to control political narratives and manufacture consent for American policy.

I don’t need TikTok for foreign ideas. I see them everywhere.

For example while I don’t buy them I have absolutely heard the Russian arguments for Ukraine. You can find complete texts of every Putin speech online, not to mention thinkers like Alexandr Dugin.

The Internet is absolutely boiling over with both pro and anti Israel arguments and propaganda too. You almost can’t even avoid it.

If the powers that be don’t want me seeing arguments against US policy they are doing an awful job.

The TikTok thing is about two things: trade unfairness and how it leverages addiction to push propaganda.

Both points are valid, but the latter applies just as well to all modern social media.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#83

Post by sgent »

C6JEsQeQa5fCjE wrote: post #77
elfbargpt wrote: post #47

I'm surprised this passed (in the house at least) at this point in the election cycle. My suspicion is that ByteDance will in fact refuse to divest, and TikTok will get banned. Which I don't think the electorate will like very much

> I'm surprised this passed (in the house at least) at this point in the election cycle AIPAC is willing to sacrifice Biden's re-election chances for this short-term victory because the other candidate and his whole party is also going to be favourable for them, possibly even more so.

Not sure what AIPAC has to do with this. The tiktok bill was brought up as a separate measure, just voted on the same day.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#84

Post by seanmcdirmid »

krapp wrote: post #78
kelnos wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really tired of arguments like this. The US (and West as a whole) are not a bunch of angels, of course. But the kind of censorship, state-mandated propaganda, and market control you see from China is not even remotely comparable to the situation in the West. Equating the two is at best uninformed, at worst disingenuous or actively malicious.

Not yet, but this is an obvious step in the same direction, "banning" a social media platform to prevent exposure to foreign ideas. It's difficult not to assume the motives are similar, a need to control political narratives and manufacture consent for American policy.

Isn't that just a slippery slope fallacy in its most pure form?

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#85

Post by seanmcdirmid »

nearbuy wrote: post #60
brigadier132 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is following a tit for tat strategy. Which European companies has the US forced to divest their holdings to justify the action you're proposing?

Which US companies has China forced to divest their holdings?

Almost all of them? Microsoft had to divest its Chinese cloud to a Shanghai water utility company (they do sewers, water reclamation and Microsoft Azure cloud!). All the auto companies that setup in China had to do it as 49/51 JVs so Chinese companies could learn lots of "how to make auto" IP, well, Tesla is the first one that was allowed to come in whole.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#86

Post by throwaway333444 »

_akhe wrote: post #68
throwaway333444 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today WoW is unavailable in China. The linked article indicates a return to China which AFAIK is not live yet. My statement is true, and the lack of WoW in China for at least a time period will always be true. But as previously mentioned this point isn’t that important. I just found it amusing that the example you used for a company behaving well in China wasn’t even in China at the time.

> the lack of WoW in China for at least a time period That's a more fair claim, but both goes without saying (because it's what we're talking about) and is still misleading, because and I'll quote the wowhead- "World of Warcraft has always been popular in China" Anyone familiar knows WoW has been available in China for many years (they even have a Blizzard China HQ) and Blizzard has been working with with NetEase for…

> That's a more fair claim, but both goes without saying (because it's what we're talking about) and is still misleading

Calling the truth misleading feels pretty 1984 to me but ignoring that for a moment. The truth is that Netease & Blizzard had some sort of disagreement resulting in all Blizzard games being yanked from China. It didn’t matter that Blizzard had a HQ there (which netease live-streamed the destruction of 1) or that they had nearly 2 decades of history of the “good” behavior you mention. At the end of the day Blizzard was forced out as soon as the partnership with the local Chinese company ended. Or in keeping with my hyperbolic scenario as soon as the local “mobsters” stopped getting their cut.

> That's true for a lot of other companies, everything from McDonalds to Ford. It's just social media companies whining.

> Do basic research and stop watching the news

Well let’s see using the first company you listed as an example McDonald’s is a minority partner in their China business 2.

“Last month, the U.S.-based burger maker cut a deal to repurchase the 28% stake in its China business Carlyle Group took in 2017, giving it a 48% share…. One advantage for McDonald’s: its majority partner in the China business, CITIC, provides top-level political cover, … Having a very powerful Chinese state-owned conglomerate as a partner means they are not going to be at the forefront of the geopolitical situation; that is quite important," Yu said.”

> Are you seriously claiming that American companies can't operate there?

That is straw-man & no I’m not.

I suppose at a high level my point is a) Blizzard was allowed there because they paid via the Joint Venutre not because of any “moral” behavior and b) China requires Joint Ventures or other similar arrangements for companies to get access to the China market. For one reason or another China views this as being in China’s best interest. Ok so be it but one shouldn’t be surprised that eventually another country would enact similar laws that it believes are in its own best interest. It just so happens that America is first with Tik Tok being the concern that forced the issue. So now the “reasonable”/legal deal for Tik Tok (& soon others I expect) will be different. As I said before there is no moral high ground here, just basic game theory.

> some of you really can't be helped

While this is probably not over the line. It’s best to try and refrain from personal attacks or anything approaching it. We just happen to have differing opinions on this topic and that’s ok. In fact we may learn something by discussing, otherwise what’s the point of commenting?

Sources 1: https://gamerant.com/netease-livestreams-destruction-chinese... 2: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/lovin-it-mc...

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#87

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

maxglute wrote: post #67
PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #2

Not always a popular sentiment, but I don't really mind treating a country's companies as that country treats ours. I know this TikTok issue is far more nuanced (who the backers/owners are, how data is treated etc) of course.

Reciprocity would be US mandating a joint venture JV structure like in PRC aka the TikTok Oracle proposal that fell through. Issue is US is uniquly delusional in thinking they can force a foreign company to divest. PRC isn't going around ordering local Boeing/Microsoft branch to divest from US. Or not delusional since they know PRC wouldn't let TIkTok to divest would open up forced divestitures as viable strategy. He…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Inc.#Corporate_gov...

> As per its Special Security Arrangement, BAE Systems Inc. operates as a semi-autonomous business unit within BAE Systems controlled at a local level by American management. In May 2006 the CEO of BAE Systems described the "firewalled" status of BAE Systems Inc: "The British members of the corporate leadership, me included, get to see the financial results; but many areas of technology, product and programme are not visible to us.... The SSA effectively allows us to operate in the US as an American company, providing the highest levels of assurance and integrity in some of the most sensitive fields of national security provision."

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#88

Post by krapp »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #84
krapp wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not yet, but this is an obvious step in the same direction, "banning" a social media platform to prevent exposure to foreign ideas. It's difficult not to assume the motives are similar, a need to control political narratives and manufacture consent for American policy.

Isn't that just a slippery slope fallacy in its most pure form?

Arguments to the effect that TikTok gives the Chinese government direct control over the minds of millions of Americans and that they plan to use it to corrupt and destroy America seem far more slippery and fallacious to me.

No one cared about any of this until recently. I remember when the consensus on HN was that TikTok was a quirky platform that reminded people of the authenticity and creativity of the old web. Now all of a sudden people are talking about TikTok with the dreadful hyperbole they might use for nuclear bombs or chemical weapons.

My instinct is to assume I'm being manipulated, and not by the red menace everyone tells me to fear.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#89

Post by seanmcdirmid »

krapp wrote: post #88
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that just a slippery slope fallacy in its most pure form?

Arguments to the effect that TikTok gives the Chinese government direct control over the minds of millions of Americans and that they plan to use it to corrupt and destroy America seem far more slippery and fallacious to me. No one cared about any of this until recently. I remember when the consensus on HN was that TikTok was a quirky platform that reminded people of the authenticity and creativity of the old web. No…

No one cared about it until TikTok got really popular around 2018, then it’s been in out of the news ever since. I doubt also TikTok is manipulating anyone, simply because the content is mostly apolitical and simply guys or girls teasing or doing some trend dance. But if America’s concerns are moot, Chinese concerns about American internet companies are almost certainly more moot. This is just the pot calling the kettle, but I think they are both wrong.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#90

Post by nearbuy »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #85
nearbuy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which US companies has China forced to divest their holdings?

Almost all of them? Microsoft had to divest its Chinese cloud to a Shanghai water utility company (they do sewers, water reclamation and Microsoft Azure cloud!). All the auto companies that setup in China had to do it as 49/51 JVs so Chinese companies could learn lots of "how to make auto" IP, well, Tesla is the first one that was allowed to come in whole.

> Microsoft had to divest its Chinese cloud to a Shanghai water utility company (they do sewers, water reclamation and Microsoft Azure cloud!)

Odd mix. Do you have a source for this?

Post reply on HN