4 ms·

I don't know how I didn't know this, but today I learned from nickdrom on TikTok that you can type in the name of anyone in congress to see which (social media)

I don't know how I didn't know this, but today I learned from nickdrom on TikTok that you can type in the name of anyone in congress to see which (social media) companies they invest in: https://www.capitoltrades.com https://www.capitoltrades.com Is it any surprise that they want to ban the tool that not only is the biggest competitor for their investments - which pay them hundreds of millions of dollars - but also tells its users where to find the very corruption that they try so hard to cover up?

SllX 4y ago
TikTok can offer that feature because Congressional investments are public information. Do you want to try testing that feature out on the upper echelons of the CCP?
- p_j_w 4y ago
  What an absurd thing to say. What's that got to do with GPs point? Should we ignore this criticism of congress because it's not allowed in China?
  - SllX 4y ago
    I think you need to start with making a case that it’s a problem that members of Congress make investments at all, including into social media companies since making investments and making investments specifically into social media companies are likely not severable disputes. I don’t think there’s a strong enough argument to make there, nor was one attempted. It looks bad, there’s probably a conflict of interest, but a conflict of interest over people who are regularly in conflict with each other doesn’t keep me up at night. It is a problem that we have an unequal exchange with the PRC over social media companies, and that the situation with American businesses under American law and situation with PRC businesses under PRC law subject to the Politburo of the CCP are equivalent, and shouldn’t be ignored by Congress because they’ll look bad or look like hypocrites. They already look bad and like hypocrites on a daily basis, but they still have a responsibility to the American people to investigate what appears to be an asset of the PRC government that only appears to be a private business operating in the American market and address it through law if necessary. Don’t forget these are the same people who spirited away Jack Ma until he toed the party line. There is no such thing as a private corporation in the PRC whilst it is subject to the CCP’s political regime. Congress sucks, but it is a notable distinction that despite how much they suck, they also make their investments public information per laws they chose to pass.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    I think the point is that anyone in America can do this. The fact that some rando on TikTok did it is just a feature of that particular social media company's algorithmic reach. You can find criticisms of congress and their "constituent" investors all across the American media ecosystem. Can't find that in China, though.
- duskwuff 4y ago
  > TikTok can offer that feature This isn't a feature of TikTok. Someone mentioned it on TikTok.
  - SllX 4y ago
    Well that’s embarrassing. You’re right, and I completely misread earlier. I think the core of my argument stands even with that, but thanks for pointing that out. Cheers!
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
TikTok/ByteDance is not publicly traded. Why is that?
- t-writescode 4y ago
  Valve is not publicly traded. Why is that?
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    Valve is privately owned. TikTok is owned by an adversarial govt with one of the worst human rights violations in the modern world. The two are not comparable.
    - Jochim 4y ago
      > ByteDance is financially backed by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, SoftBank Group, Sequoia Capital, General Atlantic, and Hillhouse Capital Group.[34] As of March 2021, it was estimated to be valued at $250 billion in private trades.[35][needs update] > In April 2021, a state-owned enterprise owned by the Cyberspace Administration of China and China Media Group, the China Internet Investment Fund, purchased a 1% stake in ByteDance's main Chinese entity and placed a government official, Wu Shugang, on its board of directors. Pretending this is about human rights abuses is simply a farce. The US has, and continues to support human rights abuse wherever it deems it advantageous. The recent witch hunt has done more damage to the US than TikTok was ever likely to. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance
      - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
        This is not about human rights. This is not about privacy. TikTok/CCP supporters keep dragging it in that direction to avoid the main issue. It is about an adversarial government having access to the US population while shutting off US companies unfairly. It is about national security and fair trade. > The recent witch hunt has done more damage to the US than TikTok was ever likely to. And you have data to support that? I was neutral about this when starting out but seeing the same weak pro-TikTok arguments repeated in different forms, have pushed to the other side.
cscurmudgeon 4y ago
This is a strange argument: I mean if TikTok were not owned by CCP and were a public company, I am sure a lot of folks in congress would have invested in it due to its size.
- data-abuse 4y ago
  Big tech has ingratiated themselves with congress by hiring friends and family, donating liberally to political campaigns, and staying involved in Washington with think tanks. In part, the campaign against Tiktok is a campaign for SF based big tech to hold the monopoly on people's attention. As a newer startup, Tiktok has not entrenched itself the way that other tech companies have in DC yet.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    FFS, TikTok also have lobbied extensively. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/22/1165249928/tiktok-congress-hearing-lobbyists-infleuncers https://www.npr.org/2023/03/22/1165249928/tiktok-congress-he... > Tiktok's lobbying tops $5.4M in 2022 as it brings its charm offensive to Congress > As a newer startup, Tiktok has not entrenched itself the way that other tech companies have in DC yet. Any measure quantifying that? TikTok is not a usual startup. It has the whole force of CCP behind it. So calling it a "young startup" is disingenuous.
neilv 4y ago
> https://www.capitoltrades.com https://www.capitoltrades.com Has anyone made a credible argument for why top national leaders should be allowed to stock-pick? (Rather than required to put any investments into total-market index funds, which is good enough for the little people.)
- roenxi 4y ago
  The obvious one is enforcement would be a political football; see for example the Trump presidency "emoluments" scandal vs. the whinging about Pelosi's investment performance. It'd never end and the quality of the candidates or decisions they make would stay the same. Another is that it'd be unfair to politicians who think that market indexes are a bad idea.
celdon25 4y ago
I don't know how I didn't know this, but today I learned from zackmorris on HN that you can type in the name of anyone in congress to see which (social media) companies they invest in: https://www.capitoltrades.com https://www.capitoltrades.com
lazyeye 4y ago
Why would people in congress invest in America's primary geo-strategic competitor? How is not doing this in any way a bad thing?

SllX 4y ago

TikTok can offer that feature because Congressional investments are public information. Do you want to try testing that feature out on the upper echelons of the CCP?

p_j_w 4y ago
What an absurd thing to say. What's that got to do with GPs point? Should we ignore this criticism of congress because it's not allowed in China?
- SllX 4y ago
  I think you need to start with making a case that it’s a problem that members of Congress make investments at all, including into social media companies since making investments and making investments specifically into social media companies are likely not severable disputes. I don’t think there’s a strong enough argument to make there, nor was one attempted. It looks bad, there’s probably a conflict of interest, but a conflict of interest over people who are regularly in conflict with each other doesn’t keep me up at night. It is a problem that we have an unequal exchange with the PRC over social media companies, and that the situation with American businesses under American law and situation with PRC businesses under PRC law subject to the Politburo of the CCP are equivalent, and shouldn’t be ignored by Congress because they’ll look bad or look like hypocrites. They already look bad and like hypocrites on a daily basis, but they still have a responsibility to the American people to investigate what appears to be an asset of the PRC government that only appears to be a private business operating in the American market and address it through law if necessary. Don’t forget these are the same people who spirited away Jack Ma until he toed the party line. There is no such thing as a private corporation in the PRC whilst it is subject to the CCP’s political regime. Congress sucks, but it is a notable distinction that despite how much they suck, they also make their investments public information per laws they chose to pass.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  I think the point is that anyone in America can do this. The fact that some rando on TikTok did it is just a feature of that particular social media company's algorithmic reach. You can find criticisms of congress and their "constituent" investors all across the American media ecosystem. Can't find that in China, though.
duskwuff 4y ago
> TikTok can offer that feature This isn't a feature of TikTok. Someone mentioned it on TikTok.
- SllX 4y ago
  Well that’s embarrassing. You’re right, and I completely misread earlier. I think the core of my argument stands even with that, but thanks for pointing that out. Cheers!

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

TikTok/ByteDance is not publicly traded. Why is that?

t-writescode 4y ago
Valve is not publicly traded. Why is that?
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Valve is privately owned. TikTok is owned by an adversarial govt with one of the worst human rights violations in the modern world. The two are not comparable.
  - Jochim 4y ago
    > ByteDance is financially backed by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, SoftBank Group, Sequoia Capital, General Atlantic, and Hillhouse Capital Group.[34] As of March 2021, it was estimated to be valued at $250 billion in private trades.[35][needs update] > In April 2021, a state-owned enterprise owned by the Cyberspace Administration of China and China Media Group, the China Internet Investment Fund, purchased a 1% stake in ByteDance's main Chinese entity and placed a government official, Wu Shugang, on its board of directors. Pretending this is about human rights abuses is simply a farce. The US has, and continues to support human rights abuse wherever it deems it advantageous. The recent witch hunt has done more damage to the US than TikTok was ever likely to. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance
    - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
      This is not about human rights. This is not about privacy. TikTok/CCP supporters keep dragging it in that direction to avoid the main issue. It is about an adversarial government having access to the US population while shutting off US companies unfairly. It is about national security and fair trade. > The recent witch hunt has done more damage to the US than TikTok was ever likely to. And you have data to support that? I was neutral about this when starting out but seeing the same weak pro-TikTok arguments repeated in different forms, have pushed to the other side.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago

This is a strange argument: I mean if TikTok were not owned by CCP and were a public company, I am sure a lot of folks in congress would have invested in it due to its size.

data-abuse 4y ago
Big tech has ingratiated themselves with congress by hiring friends and family, donating liberally to political campaigns, and staying involved in Washington with think tanks. In part, the campaign against Tiktok is a campaign for SF based big tech to hold the monopoly on people's attention. As a newer startup, Tiktok has not entrenched itself the way that other tech companies have in DC yet.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  FFS, TikTok also have lobbied extensively. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/22/1165249928/tiktok-congress-hearing-lobbyists-infleuncers https://www.npr.org/2023/03/22/1165249928/tiktok-congress-he... > Tiktok's lobbying tops $5.4M in 2022 as it brings its charm offensive to Congress > As a newer startup, Tiktok has not entrenched itself the way that other tech companies have in DC yet. Any measure quantifying that? TikTok is not a usual startup. It has the whole force of CCP behind it. So calling it a "young startup" is disingenuous.

neilv 4y ago

> https://www.capitoltrades.com https://www.capitoltrades.com Has anyone made a credible argument for why top national leaders should be allowed to stock-pick? (Rather than required to put any investments into total-market index funds, which is good enough for the little people.)

roenxi 4y ago
The obvious one is enforcement would be a political football; see for example the Trump presidency "emoluments" scandal vs. the whinging about Pelosi's investment performance. It'd never end and the quality of the candidates or decisions they make would stay the same. Another is that it'd be unfair to politicians who think that market indexes are a bad idea.

celdon25 4y ago

I don't know how I didn't know this, but today I learned from zackmorris on HN that you can type in the name of anyone in congress to see which (social media) companies they invest in: https://www.capitoltrades.com https://www.capitoltrades.com

lazyeye 4y ago

Why would people in congress invest in America's primary geo-strategic competitor? How is not doing this in any way a bad thing?