6 ms·

This is not accurate. The bill only applies to companies in which China (or other designated adversary) has a controlling interest. It doesn’t even remotely app

by yed 4y ago

This is not accurate. The bill only applies to companies in which China (or other designated adversary) has a controlling interest. It doesn’t even remotely apply to “everything connected to the internet”. I’m against the bill for vaguely libertarian reasons but the amount of misinformation surrounding this thing is ridiculous.

lazystar 4y ago
hmm. does that include reddit and disney?
- gruez 4y ago
  AFAIK tencent owns <10% of reddit, so unless they got super voting shares (unlikely) it's not a controlling interest.
  - gorgoiler 4y ago
    If a company has a particular shareholder with 51% of the stock (or votes) then one might be able to argue no one else has any real control over them. If everyone owns <10% then that’s a different story. Tencent can’t control the board alone, but they certain have some latent control. If a vote splits at 49% in favor and 49% against, the 2% shareholder has all the control.
    - lazystar 4y ago
      china certainly has influence on reddit though, even with 10%. quite a coincidence how tianenman square and Uyghur posts started getting removed after tencent came into the picture.
    - yed 4y ago
      “Controlling interest” and “controlling holding” are well worn financial concepts with long legal precedent that are not open to creative interpretation. These principles are how the feds evaluate insider trading and such.
  - ladon86 4y ago
    As above, there’s no mention of this being limited only to a controlling interest. So, going only by the text of the bill, it _would_ apply to reddit. In practice it might not be enforced that way, but the bill _would_ allow enforcement against reddit. I wouldn’t expect that to mean “Reddit CEO sent to jail”, I would guess the idea is to reserve the ability to force Chinese divestment from basically any tech company in future.
    - yed 4y ago
      As above, Section 2-3: COVERED HOLDING. —The term “covered holding”— (A) means […] a controlling holding held, directly or indirectly, in an ICTS covered holding entity by— … “Controlling holding” is defined in section 2-2 Edit: here you go (2) CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether direct or indirect and whether exercised or not exercised, to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting an entity.
      - rkho 4y ago
        You keep posting Section 2-3 and alluding to Section 2-2, which seems to be the direct definition that you wish to use to actually refute these arguments. Given this, why isn't Section 2-2 also being posted or linked to?
      - ladon86 4y ago
        > (2) CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether direct or indirect and whether exercised or not exercised, to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting an entity. Exactly - by redefining the common meaning of 'controlling holding' to remove any notion of majority stake or voting rights, this definition would apply to any average shareholder who votes in an annual meeting. From Wikipedia: > A controlling interest is an ownership interest in a corporation with enough voting stock shares to prevail in any stockholders' motion. A majority of voting shares (over 50%) is always a controlling interest. When a party holds less than the majority of the voting shares, other present circumstances can be considered to determine whether that party is still considered to hold a controlling ownership interest I'm sure the SEC has an even tighter definition of 'controlling interest' than this, and the bill could have used that definition, but instead it defines a new one.
ladon86 4y ago
It doesn’t say controlling interest, it says any interest or equity holding at all.
- yed 4y ago
  Section 2-3: COVERED HOLDING.—The term “covered holding”— (A) means […] a controlling holding held, directly or indirectly, in an ICTS covered holding entity by— … “Controlling holding” is defined in section 2-2 Edit: section 2-2 (2) CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether direct or indirect and whether exercised or not exercised, to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting an entity.
efitz 4y ago
Who gets to designate “adversaries”? This bill is a huge transfer of power from the legislature to the executive. That means that for 4-year blocks, one party gets to control all the interpretations of the various vagaries and ambiguities in the bill and throw people in jail for 20 years. Oppose anything about Ukraine policy? You’re aiding an adversary (Russia). 20 years for you. This bill is terrifying and much worse than the Patriot Act, which has militarized and politicized law enforcement and prosecution across the country. It’s not just bad, it’s evil.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Don't participate in or even oppose next invasion of other sovereign nation. You are now adversary. And all of your products will be banned from market...
- epakai 4y ago
  > Who gets to designate “adversaries”? The Commerce Secretary, however the bill also specifies the legislature's ability to check this via a joint resolution (in both directions, adding or removing from the list). The legislature has just assigned responsibility to a faster acting executive, not totally ceded their control.

by yed 4y ago

lazystar 4y ago

hmm. does that include reddit and disney?

gruez 4y ago
AFAIK tencent owns <10% of reddit, so unless they got super voting shares (unlikely) it's not a controlling interest.
- gorgoiler 4y ago
  If a company has a particular shareholder with 51% of the stock (or votes) then one might be able to argue no one else has any real control over them. If everyone owns <10% then that’s a different story. Tencent can’t control the board alone, but they certain have some latent control. If a vote splits at 49% in favor and 49% against, the 2% shareholder has all the control.
  - lazystar 4y ago
    china certainly has influence on reddit though, even with 10%. quite a coincidence how tianenman square and Uyghur posts started getting removed after tencent came into the picture.
  - yed 4y ago
    “Controlling interest” and “controlling holding” are well worn financial concepts with long legal precedent that are not open to creative interpretation. These principles are how the feds evaluate insider trading and such.
- ladon86 4y ago
  As above, there’s no mention of this being limited only to a controlling interest. So, going only by the text of the bill, it _would_ apply to reddit. In practice it might not be enforced that way, but the bill _would_ allow enforcement against reddit. I wouldn’t expect that to mean “Reddit CEO sent to jail”, I would guess the idea is to reserve the ability to force Chinese divestment from basically any tech company in future.
  - yed 4y ago
    As above, Section 2-3: COVERED HOLDING. —The term “covered holding”— (A) means […] a controlling holding held, directly or indirectly, in an ICTS covered holding entity by— … “Controlling holding” is defined in section 2-2 Edit: here you go (2) CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether direct or indirect and whether exercised or not exercised, to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting an entity.
    - rkho 4y ago
      You keep posting Section 2-3 and alluding to Section 2-2, which seems to be the direct definition that you wish to use to actually refute these arguments. Given this, why isn't Section 2-2 also being posted or linked to?
    - ladon86 4y ago
      > (2) CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether direct or indirect and whether exercised or not exercised, to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting an entity. Exactly - by redefining the common meaning of 'controlling holding' to remove any notion of majority stake or voting rights, this definition would apply to any average shareholder who votes in an annual meeting. From Wikipedia: > A controlling interest is an ownership interest in a corporation with enough voting stock shares to prevail in any stockholders' motion. A majority of voting shares (over 50%) is always a controlling interest. When a party holds less than the majority of the voting shares, other present circumstances can be considered to determine whether that party is still considered to hold a controlling ownership interest I'm sure the SEC has an even tighter definition of 'controlling interest' than this, and the bill could have used that definition, but instead it defines a new one.

ladon86 4y ago

It doesn’t say controlling interest, it says any interest or equity holding at all.

yed 4y ago
Section 2-3: COVERED HOLDING.—The term “covered holding”— (A) means […] a controlling holding held, directly or indirectly, in an ICTS covered holding entity by— … “Controlling holding” is defined in section 2-2 Edit: section 2-2 (2) CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether direct or indirect and whether exercised or not exercised, to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting an entity.

efitz 4y ago

Who gets to designate “adversaries”? This bill is a huge transfer of power from the legislature to the executive. That means that for 4-year blocks, one party gets to control all the interpretations of the various vagaries and ambiguities in the bill and throw people in jail for 20 years. Oppose anything about Ukraine policy? You’re aiding an adversary (Russia). 20 years for you. This bill is terrifying and much worse than the Patriot Act, which has militarized and politicized law enforcement and prosecution across the country. It’s not just bad, it’s evil.

Ekaros 4y ago
Don't participate in or even oppose next invasion of other sovereign nation. You are now adversary. And all of your products will be banned from market...
epakai 4y ago
> Who gets to designate “adversaries”? The Commerce Secretary, however the bill also specifies the legislature's ability to check this via a joint resolution (in both directions, adding or removing from the list). The legislature has just assigned responsibility to a faster acting executive, not totally ceded their control.