4 ms·

> Blizzard didn't "work with" NetEase, they basically gave them the IP and ability to sell the game in China as well as ownership of all servers that host Chine

by _akhe 2y ago

> Blizzard didn't "work with" NetEase, they basically gave them the IP and ability to sell the game in China as well as ownership of all servers that host Chinese players. My dear bro, this is called "working with". > Microsoft did the same thing with their Office suite and Azure cloud services... because they aren't allowed to independently operate in China. You're the one actually being manipulative with words here: Microsoft is allowed to sell products in China and they do, by independently operate you might mean "ignore Chinese laws" some of which include the fact that Microsoft is required to share data with our government on a regular basis. Beyond ethics and ad tracking, why would another government allow US-based companies to effectively spy on them? > They don't allow foreign competition. This creates an uneven playing field. Again not true, you just have to follow the laws of whatever country you're operating in.

brigadier132 2y ago
And the law of the US is that tiktok can't be owned by a Chinese company. Easy, they should just operate under that rule.
- _akhe 2y ago
  ByteDance is owned by international investors including Carlyle Group, General Atlantic and Susquehanna, 3/5 of the board are Americans, and the company - TikTok - isn't operated in the US by a Chinese company, the servers are owned by Oracle. Without the deal with Oracle they would have to form an American company for their American operations like every international company has done since the 80s. To use an example from back then, Sony Computer Entertainment started out in Tokyo but expanded to the US. They had to form an American company - Sony Computer Entertainment America. Imagine not doing it this way, every payment in a foreign currency, handling lawsuits, employees, etc. Speaking of employees, given many of them are equity shareholders, if you ban ownership based on nationality, what does that mean for companies with employees all over the world? Simplified example: Remote culture, no office, the 2 co-founders are in China and NY respectively, they own equal shares of the company, it's registered in China and incorporated in the US, there are employees in both places, following all laws of each. Is that a "Chinese company"? Under this law, would the Chinese founder have to sell his share to the American founder in order to continue operating in NY?

by _akhe 2y ago

brigadier132 2y ago

And the law of the US is that tiktok can't be owned by a Chinese company. Easy, they should just operate under that rule.

_akhe 2y ago
ByteDance is owned by international investors including Carlyle Group, General Atlantic and Susquehanna, 3/5 of the board are Americans, and the company - TikTok - isn't operated in the US by a Chinese company, the servers are owned by Oracle. Without the deal with Oracle they would have to form an American company for their American operations like every international company has done since the 80s. To use an example from back then, Sony Computer Entertainment started out in Tokyo but expanded to the US. They had to form an American company - Sony Computer Entertainment America. Imagine not doing it this way, every payment in a foreign currency, handling lawsuits, employees, etc. Speaking of employees, given many of them are equity shareholders, if you ban ownership based on nationality, what does that mean for companies with employees all over the world? Simplified example: Remote culture, no office, the 2 co-founders are in China and NY respectively, they own equal shares of the company, it's registered in China and incorporated in the US, there are employees in both places, following all laws of each. Is that a "Chinese company"? Under this law, would the Chinese founder have to sell his share to the American founder in order to continue operating in NY?