4 ms·

> Am I being naive? Possibly. Axios[0] quotes Trump as saying: “A very substantial portion of that price is going to have to come into the Treasury of the Uni

• mcintyre1994 6y ago
  I'm probably being stupid, but how is that not absolutely terrifying for US companies? The deal seems to be that all acquisition of foreign companies has to have a kickback to the treasury because they could always just ban the company you bought otherwise?
  • puranjay 6y ago
    This entire thing saddens me a great deal. It seems that you can just whip people up into a frenzy - even th HN crowd - simply by shouting "national security" and providing no proof to back it up. Has everyone really forgotten Saddam's WMDs so quickly?
    • xvector 6y ago
      I too was surprised that the HN crowd supported Trump’s and Microsoft’s actions so much. The people here are fairly intelligent and tend to have a good education. We are no stranger to history. We know that “national security risk” has been used to justify terrifying programs like PRISM and the Patriot Act. And despite having this in mind, so many folks here just openly supported what is effectively a hostile and coercive takeover of a foreign corporation. If some of the most educated people in this country can fall victim to populist xenophobia then I don’t have much hope for us overall.
      • FooBarWidget 6y ago
        People are normally skeptical of the US media and of government claims. Yet when it comes to China-related topics, people eat it all up, with minimal critical thinking, and even amplify them. China is not without problems, but people react so strongly to China-related issues that the subject is the perfect distraction, the perfect propaganda tool.
    • jacobush 6y ago
      Not really. We know private data is being weaponised, it’s just that we as a society have turned a blind eye to it when it’s domestic companies doing it. Right or wrong, possibly because we believe in the checks and balances here. When it comes to China, partly because of prejudice I guess, but also because of the evidence. There you get thrown into forced labour when electronic surveillance indicates you should be. We are not quite that bad here. (Yet, I guess, if we don’t turn the tide.)
      • puranjay 6y ago
        > We know private data is being weaponised How? What security risks does the DM inbox of a 16 year old possess?
        • jacobush 6y ago
          What do you have to hide? Nothing? Ok then, let's give all your data and social graphs to marketing companies, who will be careful custodians.
          • puranjay 6y ago
            I'm no fan of that either, but where does the national security risk come in?
            • jacobush 6y ago
              Giving random private companies Stasi like surveillance by default is in my opinion a national security risk for many reasons. It feels strange that I even have to point out that its ripe for corruption: - people in the know can shape the narrative - shady domestic or foreign powers can get access - a future potential non-democratic dictatorship has a turn-key surveillance and propaganda tool already up and running I think that's bad.
          • owenmarshall 6y ago
            I thought this strong arm acquisition was happening because of national security. Are we walking that back to "personal privacy"? When does the US seize Facebook to protect our data and social graphs?
  • rsynnott 6y ago
    I mean, I suspect that most companies will take the view that this is Trump talking nonsense like usual, and that no such tax actually exists. Given Trump's history, companies are unlikely to jump to "argh, the US is the new Russia; divest immediately!" That said, you can imagine there could be problems if this sort of rhetoric continues.
  • treis 6y ago
    Trump's a blow hard. What he says means little compared to what he actually does. MS probably won't end up paying an acquisition fee. At worst it will be some tax pre-payment or some other nonsense that Trump can claim as a victory.