10 ms·
Microsoft Statement on TikTok
- doctoboggan 6y agoStrange, it seems like they are in a way accusing ByteDance of not selling to them because MS was going to make changes to meet their "highest standards for security, privacy, online safety, and combatting disinformation". Is it usual for a company to give out any statement when a potential acquisition does not happen?
- chki 6y agoI think if you are a publicly traded company you are even required by law (at least in Europe) to publish information about the failure of such an important acquisition as soon as you learn about it. Edit: see for example Art. 17 of the EU market abuse regulation.
- yepthatsreality 6y agoIt was a political statement by POTUS to block and then later allow extension period for the sale of ByteDance to Microsoft. This is a political statement back on the results of the agreements. It is responsible that Microsoft publically posted this official notice, in addition to however else you may find it.
- vikramkr 6y agoI don't think they're being as coy as the phrasing "in a way accusing" suggests. This is a very direct accusation that Bytedance is not on board with changes for privacy, security, etc.
- approxim8ion 6y agowith changes Microsoft claim to be for privacy, security etc. to the public.
- leptoniscool 6y agoThey found a higher bidder? Or did export restrictions from China hinder sale?
- kmfrk 6y agoByteDance announced they weren't going to hand over the recommendation algo for TikTok which seems like a bit of a dealbreaker. ~~https://twitter.com/verge/status/1305285085722292224~~ https://twitter.com/verge/status/1305285085722292224~~ Right link: https://twitter.com/business/status/1305179144171421708 https://twitter.com/business/status/1305179144171421708
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ComputerGuru 6y agoYour link has nothing to do with recommendation engines? Perhaps you pasted the wrong one?
- kmfrk 6y agoOh whoops, I picked the tweet next to this one: https://twitter.com/business/status/1305179144171421708 https://twitter.com/business/status/1305179144171421708.
- actuator 6y agoThis recommendation algo bit looks unnecessarily hyped up, it is not as if they have cracked a new superior recommendation method. From an article that was posted few days back, it seemed like collaborative filtering with more signals being collected about engagement. Didn't look like something which say FB or Snap won't be able to do.
- nikolay 6y agoOracle? :)
- 6y ago
- yepthatsreality 6y agoShort, sweet, and to the point; you can feel the rage.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- DethNinja 6y agoSo basically if you want to serve the USA market, you have to give up the shares of your company to ruling class of USA? This is eerily similar to how communist China operates.
- ericmay 6y agoSo far it’s only been communist Chinese companies that have had to go through this (to my knowledge) in recent times. Tit for tat and al that. Maybe if China let Facebook, Twitter, etc operate then we wouldn’t have this problem.
- DethNinja 6y agoThere is no such thing as tit for a tat in a civilisation with rule of law. Either USA had privacy laws that forbid Tik Tok from participating in USA marketplace or USA doesn’t have rule of law and operates under some form of dictatorship.
- DelightOne 6y agoThe world is not black and white.
- dragonwriter 6y agoThe law underlying this deal isn't a privacy law but a national security law that allows the President to force the sale of foreign-owned assets that pose a security risk. It's mainly intended to deal with war, near/imminent war, and quasiwar situations where the assets are active tools of opposing belligerent, and, even if this is technically within the letter of the law (about which there has been serious questions raised), it's seems clearly outside of the intended application and to be very likely premised on a bad-faith determination that is an abuse of power. But the Republicans in the Senate have already signalled a lack of willingness to hold the President to account for any abuse of power no matter how flagrant, so everything that isn't forcibly constrained by something other than the risk of impeachment is, de facto, licensed until the Senate and/or President are changed.
- 6y ago
- patrickaljord 6y ago> We are confident our proposal would have been good for TikTok’s users, while protecting national security interests Does anyone seriously believe TikTok is a threat to national security? > combatting disinformation There you have it. I've seen TikTok videos go viral being really critical of the US government including its foreign policy. The kind of video that would just be invisible or outright banned from Youtube or Facebook video. That's why they want to get rid of it.
- Waterluvian 6y agoI think the last four or so years have proven without a doubt that command of social media gives immense power to threaten the national security of others. I have no thoughts on if they are a threat right now, but I think they are a very interesting and possibly powerful piece on the board for the future.
- ericmay 6y agoI think the main issue is this: The US views Chinese social media apps as being able to spread criticism (and most likely propaganda) and the US can’t do likewise in China, so they’ll just not let Chinese social media companies operate in the US until that changes. There will be 0 official, influential Chinese social media companies operating in the US on a permanent basis until the CCP let’s US social media companies operate in China. This has bipartisan support.
- echelon 6y agoHave you seen the anti-US sentiment being stoked on TikTok among our nation's zoomers? "All buildings matter" and "all days in September matter" are just two recent memes from the past month. TikTok is doing a lot of harm to our national image. Zoomers that I know don't think it's important for the US to have a lead in tech and that we commit atrocities worse than China. It's pretty alarming that we're being manipulated whereas China and Russia are impenetrable. Social media in the hands of state actors may be one of the greatest dangers to democracy yet.
- 6y ago
- jedberg 6y agoLooks like they decided to sell to Oracle instead. I wonder if this is Microsoft's way of saying, "It still won't be safe under Oracle".
- dilap 6y ago"combatting disinformation" I.e., US govt doesn't want a popular social network that is not under its control.
- ponker 6y agoUltimately I feel that this deal is so skeezy and coated in the slime of Trumpist corruption that I wanted it to go to the worst possible company and it looks like this happened.
- gumby 6y agoSeems like killing tiktok would be the perfect way to turn out the youth vote.
- peacefulhat 6y agoDemocrats like Chuck Schumer wanted to force the sale and asset transfer of TikTok too.
- goolulusaurs 6y agoFrankly, I don't give a shit about the national interest of the US or the national interest of China. As a user of tiktok, I enjoy the content and I will be saddened if it shuts down. We like to think of our country as our team, and to root for it in international struggles, but the reality is that it's the average consumer that gets harmed by these power struggles between nations. These economic proxy wars are just as much of a racket as conventional wars, and the sooner we stop allowing the few to rule the many, and play out their egoic power struggles with our lives, the better.
- tus88 6y agoStorm in a teacup over a stupid vines app. Really.
- vortico 6y agoThis reminds me a bit of a wing-man situation not working. "Donald tried to hook us up on a date, but she wasn't interested."
- ddmma 6y agoYahoo had a similar decision some years ago, greedy corporates per se
- vitalychernobyl 6y agoWomp womp..
- peacefulhat 6y agoThere's a Reuters article that claims the Chinese government prefers TikTok close US operations like in India than go through with a forced sale and asset transfer, and they're willing to use heavy-handed policy to make Bytedance do what they want. Makes sense. Acquisitions should not be made under the barrel of a gun from the US government. It will be very harmful to the Chinese economy if more companies are required to spinoff US operations.
- Rapzid 6y agoSo why haven't they closed down?
- newen 6y agoYeah, it's like US companies buying UK companies and then massively profiting off them. Why should China subsidize startup costs for a company and then sell it so the US can make massive profits off it? It doesn't seem to be in their interests.
- dang 6y agoOngoing discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24464933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24464933.
- StaticChamp 6y agoWhy would anyone invite cancer?