44 ms·

If I were Bytedance I would cut off the US. I certainly would not sell to a competitor. And I’d probably do a licensing deal for the content with a new entity w

If I were Bytedance I would cut off the US. I certainly would not sell to a competitor. And I’d probably do a licensing deal for the content with a new entity without US based shareholders.

sgt 3y ago
This is your perfect time to sell the crap before it goes stale. Come on, have we learned nothing?
- spiderfarmer 3y ago
  Maybe I just value not being bullied over being rich.
  - kenjackson 3y ago
    If you leave the US then you've accomplished what they wanted anyways. And now you're much poorer for it. The upside is you feel like you did it on your terms or something?
    - spiderfarmer 3y ago
      Yes.
encoderer 3y ago
How can they do that without upsetting the record labels? They get a free pass to use licensed music because it’s a huge marketing channel for the labels. Lose America and that goes away.
Buttons840 3y ago
If TikTok truly is a Chinese psyop, the most effective thing they could do is spend their remaining days sewing discontent with the government, refuse to sell, and let the whole thing burn down, thus riling up "the youths" and teaching them that their own government is a problem. They could also tell TikTok users to install a VPN and access the servers in China directly. I actually see this as a silver lining. I want young people to realize the government effects them and can directly ruin things they enjoy. I want young people to be more involved in politics and to vote.
- afavour 3y ago
  > I actually see this as a silver lining. I want young people to realize the government effects them and can directly ruin things they enjoy. Would you also consider it a win if young people realize the dangers of social media apps owned by geopolitical competitors able to alter the mindset of the population?
  - Buttons840 3y ago
    Sure, I guess. That's a very loaded question about a complex issue so I'm not sure how to answer it. But I can say, despite the complexities of that issue, my higher ideals are: I want people to be more involved in politics and I want more people to vote. Wanting more people to vote is a safe side of history to be on I think. I also want people to be able to access the content and information they choose. If that is the content and information on TikTok, who am I to deny them? I believe in free speech, morally (I say morally because, yes, I know the 1st Amendment doesn't apply everywhere, morally).
    - tazu 3y ago
      > Wanting more people to vote is a safe side of history to be on I think. This is going to be a hilarious statement in 20-50 years. It's funny because on HN of all places, where all wildly successful companies are ran as absolute monarchies, and all the devices we type on are produced by companies ran as absolute monarchies, there's this undeserved reverence for "democracy" as if it's some sacred church or something. If the voting population is so easily swayed by a video scrolling app, maybe, just maybe democracy isn't such a good idea? Would you work for a company where the CEO makes important decisions based on the amalgamation of 30 second videos that happen to come across his/her feed? I wouldn't. I don't think I want to participate in a country ran like that either. I'd expect the decisions to appear schizophrenic, which quite frankly describes our current political situation in the US. Like, we have 100K+ fentanyl overdoses a year in the US, and I don't see any TikToks "informing voters" about that. No one cares. In fact, I don't even expect normal people to care about it---in a healthy society they shouldn't even be aware of it. It would take a special person, who is egoically invested in the health of his population to change that. Someone like a startup CEO, ala Washington, Jobs, etc. So no, you're not on the "safe side of history" by advocating for something that's politically fashionable at the moment. History is written (and re-written) by the winners, and I wouldn't put my money on "democracy".
afavour 3y ago
Then you’d be wasting a huge amount of money for no good reason. If TikTok gets banned Meta will probably vacuum up the audience with Instagram Reels. It would be posturing with no real purpose.
- Barrin92 3y ago
  From Bytedance's point of view that's correct but the Chinese gov. would almost certainly interpret giving in to this as an incentive for Washington to ask "which sell off are we going to go for next". You'd effectively send the signal that this is a winning strategy to simply acquire Chinese firms by force. Beijing would almost certainly prevent that sale.
- nebula8804 3y ago
  If Reels was any good wouldn't it have become a meaningful force in its own right by now? As it stands from my point of view it is mostly stolen recycled week old TikTok content. That TikTok "magic" is made on their platform because of what their algorithm rewards. Meta does not have that "magic".
  - afavour 3y ago
    My point is that if Reels doesn’t have to compete with TikTok any more (because it shuts down) then that would be a good thing for Meta.
    - nebula8804 3y ago
      I see where you are coming from but we have to consider why TikTok became so good in the first place and can that really be replicated in a vacuum? Look at X, once they got taken over, others tried to step up (Mastodon, BLueSky, threads). They all obviously grew...but the winner was nobody. People just stopped using that category of app altogether in favor of a different category (discord) or nothing at all.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> If I were Bytedance I would cut off the US This is economically irrational to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. If Beijing truly does this, it somewhat cements the argument that TikTok was a CCP policy tool.
- brentm 3y ago
  I think it is reasonable that Beijing will not allow any sort of sale just for posture purposes. They don't want to be see as forced by Washington to do something and they care less about private economic outcomes than we do here, at least on the surface.
- mamonster 3y ago
  Depends. If you model this as a reputation game, depending on who is the sane and who is the crazy sender, the PBE might might be a pooling equilibrium(i.e makes sense to build the reputation of being a predatory firm).
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > makes sense to build the reputation of being a predatory firm To what end? It isn't going to placate the hawks in America. And it's likely to inflame them elsewhere, e.g. in Europe. The only way you can position it as a win is within China's domestic politics, where it would save face for Xi and his acolytes. (Hence, the inefficiency of dictatorship.)
    - mamonster 3y ago
      I wasn't making a concrete case(I have no idea what is either in U.S gov's or Xi's head), was just making the point that when you allow for signals with costs and subsequent belief updates then setting multiples of billions of dollars on fire may be economically rational.
    - insane_dreamer 3y ago
      > The only way you can position it as a win is within China's domestic politics, where it would save face for Xi and his acolytes. do not discount the importance of this; much of CCP's actions revolve around its survival
PurpleRamen 3y ago
USA seems to make around 10-15% of their users, and is probably a big source of income. Purely for the economics, this would be lousy idea. Especially as a cut-off from the USA could influence other markets, including losing them too. EU has some movement too, they probably will watch very close what will happen there and act accordingly.
refurb 3y ago
What do you think would happen to the value of a company cutting of the richest country in the world?

If I were Bytedance I would cut off the US. I certainly would not sell to a competitor. And I’d probably do a licensing deal for the content with a new entity without US based shareholders.

sgt 3y ago

This is your perfect time to sell the crap before it goes stale. Come on, have we learned nothing?

spiderfarmer 3y ago
Maybe I just value not being bullied over being rich.
- kenjackson 3y ago
  If you leave the US then you've accomplished what they wanted anyways. And now you're much poorer for it. The upside is you feel like you did it on your terms or something?
  - spiderfarmer 3y ago
    Yes.

encoderer 3y ago

How can they do that without upsetting the record labels? They get a free pass to use licensed music because it’s a huge marketing channel for the labels. Lose America and that goes away.

Buttons840 3y ago

If TikTok truly is a Chinese psyop, the most effective thing they could do is spend their remaining days sewing discontent with the government, refuse to sell, and let the whole thing burn down, thus riling up "the youths" and teaching them that their own government is a problem. They could also tell TikTok users to install a VPN and access the servers in China directly. I actually see this as a silver lining. I want young people to realize the government effects them and can directly ruin things they enjoy. I want young people to be more involved in politics and to vote.

afavour 3y ago
> I actually see this as a silver lining. I want young people to realize the government effects them and can directly ruin things they enjoy. Would you also consider it a win if young people realize the dangers of social media apps owned by geopolitical competitors able to alter the mindset of the population?
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Sure, I guess. That's a very loaded question about a complex issue so I'm not sure how to answer it. But I can say, despite the complexities of that issue, my higher ideals are: I want people to be more involved in politics and I want more people to vote. Wanting more people to vote is a safe side of history to be on I think. I also want people to be able to access the content and information they choose. If that is the content and information on TikTok, who am I to deny them? I believe in free speech, morally (I say morally because, yes, I know the 1st Amendment doesn't apply everywhere, morally).
  - tazu 3y ago
    > Wanting more people to vote is a safe side of history to be on I think. This is going to be a hilarious statement in 20-50 years. It's funny because on HN of all places, where all wildly successful companies are ran as absolute monarchies, and all the devices we type on are produced by companies ran as absolute monarchies, there's this undeserved reverence for "democracy" as if it's some sacred church or something. If the voting population is so easily swayed by a video scrolling app, maybe, just maybe democracy isn't such a good idea? Would you work for a company where the CEO makes important decisions based on the amalgamation of 30 second videos that happen to come across his/her feed? I wouldn't. I don't think I want to participate in a country ran like that either. I'd expect the decisions to appear schizophrenic, which quite frankly describes our current political situation in the US. Like, we have 100K+ fentanyl overdoses a year in the US, and I don't see any TikToks "informing voters" about that. No one cares. In fact, I don't even expect normal people to care about it---in a healthy society they shouldn't even be aware of it. It would take a special person, who is egoically invested in the health of his population to change that. Someone like a startup CEO, ala Washington, Jobs, etc. So no, you're not on the "safe side of history" by advocating for something that's politically fashionable at the moment. History is written (and re-written) by the winners, and I wouldn't put my money on "democracy".

afavour 3y ago

Then you’d be wasting a huge amount of money for no good reason. If TikTok gets banned Meta will probably vacuum up the audience with Instagram Reels. It would be posturing with no real purpose.

Barrin92 3y ago
From Bytedance's point of view that's correct but the Chinese gov. would almost certainly interpret giving in to this as an incentive for Washington to ask "which sell off are we going to go for next". You'd effectively send the signal that this is a winning strategy to simply acquire Chinese firms by force. Beijing would almost certainly prevent that sale.
nebula8804 3y ago
If Reels was any good wouldn't it have become a meaningful force in its own right by now? As it stands from my point of view it is mostly stolen recycled week old TikTok content. That TikTok "magic" is made on their platform because of what their algorithm rewards. Meta does not have that "magic".
- afavour 3y ago
  My point is that if Reels doesn’t have to compete with TikTok any more (because it shuts down) then that would be a good thing for Meta.
  - nebula8804 3y ago
    I see where you are coming from but we have to consider why TikTok became so good in the first place and can that really be replicated in a vacuum? Look at X, once they got taken over, others tried to step up (Mastodon, BLueSky, threads). They all obviously grew...but the winner was nobody. People just stopped using that category of app altogether in favor of a different category (discord) or nothing at all.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> If I were Bytedance I would cut off the US This is economically irrational to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. If Beijing truly does this, it somewhat cements the argument that TikTok was a CCP policy tool.

brentm 3y ago
I think it is reasonable that Beijing will not allow any sort of sale just for posture purposes. They don't want to be see as forced by Washington to do something and they care less about private economic outcomes than we do here, at least on the surface.
mamonster 3y ago
Depends. If you model this as a reputation game, depending on who is the sane and who is the crazy sender, the PBE might might be a pooling equilibrium(i.e makes sense to build the reputation of being a predatory firm).
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > makes sense to build the reputation of being a predatory firm To what end? It isn't going to placate the hawks in America. And it's likely to inflame them elsewhere, e.g. in Europe. The only way you can position it as a win is within China's domestic politics, where it would save face for Xi and his acolytes. (Hence, the inefficiency of dictatorship.)
  - mamonster 3y ago
    I wasn't making a concrete case(I have no idea what is either in U.S gov's or Xi's head), was just making the point that when you allow for signals with costs and subsequent belief updates then setting multiples of billions of dollars on fire may be economically rational.
  - insane_dreamer 3y ago
    > The only way you can position it as a win is within China's domestic politics, where it would save face for Xi and his acolytes. do not discount the importance of this; much of CCP's actions revolve around its survival

PurpleRamen 3y ago

USA seems to make around 10-15% of their users, and is probably a big source of income. Purely for the economics, this would be lousy idea. Especially as a cut-off from the USA could influence other markets, including losing them too. EU has some movement too, they probably will watch very close what will happen there and act accordingly.

refurb 3y ago

What do you think would happen to the value of a company cutting of the richest country in the world?