5 ms·

I don't know. Even Russia wasn't a foreign adversary 10 years ago. Japan allegedly was one very briefly 35 years ago. So who knows, the safest move is indeed se

by rfoo 2y ago

I don't know. Even Russia wasn't a foreign adversary 10 years ago. Japan allegedly was one very briefly 35 years ago. So who knows, the safest move is indeed sell to U.S. companies.

Petersipoi 2y ago
Why? Once ByteDance sells to some company, why would they care if said company because a US adversary in the future?
- rfoo 2y ago
  > why would they care ByteDance would not care, but would that "some company" care? Certainly. If they are going to care and they think it may happen, does this make them reconsider whether to buy or not, and at what price? Sure.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
Russia definitely was a foreign adversary 10 years ago. They annexed Crimea in March 2014. Of course, the one persons opinion that mattered(Obama) thought "lol it's not the 80s anymore"
- butler14 2y ago
  to be fair to obama, let's not pretend he didn't have an army of super smart planners, strategists and analysts behind him in various corners of the pentagon, the CIA and the NSA that led him to that decision
  - bpodgursky 2y ago
    Do you have any evidence that the analysis supported the decision "nah let it slide"? You don't need a bench of NSA analysts to grow a spine.
  - hermitdev 2y ago
    The reality is, the Obama administration kept drawing red lines that kept getting stepped over with no consequences. Syria, Iran, ISIS...Russia saw that and that there'd be no real consequences. Same thing happening now with the Biden foreign policy of "don't". Might call it the anti-Roosevelt doctrine: speak timidly, and what stick? edit: minor grammar fix
    - themaninthedark 2y ago
      North Korea. Not entirely his fault but they got the bomb on his watch.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Sure, but were those super smart planners, strategists, and analysts just providing plans, strategy, and analysis that Obama already agreed with? Romney saw Russia for what it was in 2012 - Obama/Romney vote percents in 2012 was 51/47, a fairly close election. If Romney did win, would all of those planners/strategists/analysts be trying to convince Romney that Russia wasn't a threat, or would he just have had a different set that were telling him Russia is a major threat?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rfoo 2y ago
  Right, I should have said 11 years ago, or 10.2 years ago.
nickburns 2y ago
from the language of the now-signed bill/law [1]: (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code. 10 USC 4872(d)(2) [2]: (2) Covered nation.—The term “covered nation” means— (A) the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea; (B) the People’s Republic of China; (C) the Russian Federation; and (D) the Islamic Republic of Iran. in other words—the law is and will continue to be express about which "foreign adversary countries" cannot operate and/or control ByteDance. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872
- ETHisso2017 2y ago
  Nicely written bill of attainder...
  - nickburns 2y ago
    i do believe that determination would be reserved for a court of competent jurisdiction, but tight indeed.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > tight indeed Not even close. Bills of attainders named a person and suspended their rights with no right to trial. (Analogous to proscription.) The only thing this law has in common with those is it names a person, ByteDance, as an intended target of enforcement. The enforcement actions must still be done through the courts to which ByteDance retains access.
      - nickburns 2y ago
        you miss my point (i.e., i'm on your side). what i've meant to say, like you, is that only a court of competent jurisdiction can make an actual legal determination as to whether or not some challenged legislative act amounts to a so-called and therefore invalid 'bill of attainder' as prohibited by the Attainder Clause, the third of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution[1]. it's merely my personal opinion that the legislative act at-issue is 'tightly' drafted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Federal_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...

by rfoo 2y ago

I don't know. Even Russia wasn't a foreign adversary 10 years ago. Japan allegedly was one very briefly 35 years ago. So who knows, the safest move is indeed sell to U.S. companies.

Petersipoi 2y ago

Why? Once ByteDance sells to some company, why would they care if said company because a US adversary in the future?

rfoo 2y ago
> why would they care ByteDance would not care, but would that "some company" care? Certainly. If they are going to care and they think it may happen, does this make them reconsider whether to buy or not, and at what price? Sure.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

Russia definitely was a foreign adversary 10 years ago. They annexed Crimea in March 2014. Of course, the one persons opinion that mattered(Obama) thought "lol it's not the 80s anymore"

butler14 2y ago
to be fair to obama, let's not pretend he didn't have an army of super smart planners, strategists and analysts behind him in various corners of the pentagon, the CIA and the NSA that led him to that decision
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  Do you have any evidence that the analysis supported the decision "nah let it slide"? You don't need a bench of NSA analysts to grow a spine.
- hermitdev 2y ago
  The reality is, the Obama administration kept drawing red lines that kept getting stepped over with no consequences. Syria, Iran, ISIS...Russia saw that and that there'd be no real consequences. Same thing happening now with the Biden foreign policy of "don't". Might call it the anti-Roosevelt doctrine: speak timidly, and what stick? edit: minor grammar fix
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    North Korea. Not entirely his fault but they got the bomb on his watch.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Sure, but were those super smart planners, strategists, and analysts just providing plans, strategy, and analysis that Obama already agreed with? Romney saw Russia for what it was in 2012 - Obama/Romney vote percents in 2012 was 51/47, a fairly close election. If Romney did win, would all of those planners/strategists/analysts be trying to convince Romney that Russia wasn't a threat, or would he just have had a different set that were telling him Russia is a major threat?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rfoo 2y ago
Right, I should have said 11 years ago, or 10.2 years ago.

nickburns 2y ago

from the language of the now-signed bill/law [1]: (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code. 10 USC 4872(d)(2) [2]: (2) Covered nation.—The term “covered nation” means— (A) the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea; (B) the People’s Republic of China; (C) the Russian Federation; and (D) the Islamic Republic of Iran. in other words—the law is and will continue to be express about which "foreign adversary countries" cannot operate and/or control ByteDance. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872

ETHisso2017 2y ago
Nicely written bill of attainder...
- nickburns 2y ago
  i do believe that determination would be reserved for a court of competent jurisdiction, but tight indeed.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > tight indeed Not even close. Bills of attainders named a person and suspended their rights with no right to trial. (Analogous to proscription.) The only thing this law has in common with those is it names a person, ByteDance, as an intended target of enforcement. The enforcement actions must still be done through the courts to which ByteDance retains access.
    - nickburns 2y ago
      you miss my point (i.e., i'm on your side). what i've meant to say, like you, is that only a court of competent jurisdiction can make an actual legal determination as to whether or not some challenged legislative act amounts to a so-called and therefore invalid 'bill of attainder' as prohibited by the Attainder Clause, the third of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution[1]. it's merely my personal opinion that the legislative act at-issue is 'tightly' drafted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Federal_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...