3 ms·

TikTok isn't banned. They are just being forced to operate it as a US company. And given we have whistleblowers who say they were providing information to the

TikTok isn't banned. They are just being forced to operate it as a US company. And given we have whistleblowers who say they were providing information to the Chinese government and odd data like below it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMAVQ5VXsAE1weD?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMAVQ5VXsAE1weD?format=jpg&name=...

mistermann 3y ago
> They are just being forced to operate it as a US company. Can you explain the role the word "just" is playing in your statement, and how you determined it to be true?
nostromo 3y ago
None of that is new. What changed is that politicians didn't like the messages being sent on TikTok. And, yes, the act calls for it to be banned unless it's divested. That's still a ban.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> They are just being forced to operate it as a US company They are being strongly encouraged / coerced to operate as a non-Chinese controlled company. If they were controlled by a company in France, India or Brazil, that would be fine. Failing that, TikTok would be removed from app stores (and U.S. hosting). They are still free to do business in America. And TikTok.com will cleanly resolve. (Unlike e.g. Facebook in China.)
- TMWNN 3y ago
  >And TikTok.com will cleanly resolve. My understanding is that the new law also covers webapps.
tzs 3y ago
I saw some mergers and acquisitions analysts saying that TikTok is big enough that it would not be possible for the companies in the US that might feasibly buy it to do the necessary due diligence to make a deal before the deadline imposed by the law. If that's true then it is arguably effectively an attempted ban.
- tmaly 3y ago
  I saw an article that US revenue is not enough to make it worth wild for them to divulge their algorithms. They would try to fight the law in court, but it they fail, they will not sell.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
The people behind the bill have said over and over again that their aim is to ban TikTok. This is an example of Gallagher, who introduced the latest bill, saying just that: [0]. They've written the latest bill in a way that they think will allow them to avoid First Amendment objections, but it's functionally equivalent to a ban. 0. https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-gallagher-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-ban-tiktok/ https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-gallagher-introduce-bipar...

mistermann 3y ago

> They are just being forced to operate it as a US company. Can you explain the role the word "just" is playing in your statement, and how you determined it to be true?

nostromo 3y ago

None of that is new. What changed is that politicians didn't like the messages being sent on TikTok. And, yes, the act calls for it to be banned unless it's divested. That's still a ban.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> They are just being forced to operate it as a US company They are being strongly encouraged / coerced to operate as a non-Chinese controlled company. If they were controlled by a company in France, India or Brazil, that would be fine. Failing that, TikTok would be removed from app stores (and U.S. hosting). They are still free to do business in America. And TikTok.com will cleanly resolve. (Unlike e.g. Facebook in China.)

TMWNN 3y ago
>And TikTok.com will cleanly resolve. My understanding is that the new law also covers webapps.

tzs 3y ago

I saw some mergers and acquisitions analysts saying that TikTok is big enough that it would not be possible for the companies in the US that might feasibly buy it to do the necessary due diligence to make a deal before the deadline imposed by the law. If that's true then it is arguably effectively an attempted ban.

tmaly 3y ago
I saw an article that US revenue is not enough to make it worth wild for them to divulge their algorithms. They would try to fight the law in court, but it they fail, they will not sell.

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago

The people behind the bill have said over and over again that their aim is to ban TikTok. This is an example of Gallagher, who introduced the latest bill, saying just that: [0]. They've written the latest bill in a way that they think will allow them to avoid First Amendment objections, but it's functionally equivalent to a ban. 0. https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-gallagher-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-ban-tiktok/ https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-gallagher-introduce-bipar...