3 ms·
What? its not worse than a ban, its so not worse that ByteDance could simply not sell its US operations and stop being present in the US, making it just like a
by asdfthvaa2 6y ago
What? its not worse than a ban, its so not worse that ByteDance could simply not sell its US operations and stop being present in the US, making it just like a ban. A ban would leave no option.
This is pretty much what China does, but for every service.
- nine_zeros 6y ago> This is pretty much what China does, but for every service. Since when did we aspire to become more like China? > its not worse than a ban, its so not worse that ByteDance could simply not sell its US operations and stop being present in the US, making it just like a ban The difference is, why should a US entity own this asset for it to have operations in the US? Why can't it be a EU entity or Australian entity or Canadian entity or Ugandan entity? Does this mean that US government is going to erratically force foreign businesses to sell US assets when they want? The equivalent of this would be EU asking Apple to sell all EU operations to Nokia or whatever to be able to operate in that market. Does this sound business friendly?
- throwaway554323 6y agoThis is not what China does. China requires a proactive censorship policy and all Chinese data to be hosted in China. If the company complies, they can operate in China. This is why Skype and iMessage work in China.