7 ms·

What if Congress passed a law that said "The New York Times must shut down unless all foreign owners divest"? That's effectively impossible for a publicly trade

by patmcc 2y ago

What if Congress passed a law that said "The New York Times must shut down unless all foreign owners divest"? That's effectively impossible for a publicly traded corporation. Is that just a ban, in practice?

IncreasePosts 2y ago
Except this isn't a law against any foreign owner, just specifically a foreign owner that is essentially the #1 geopolitical adversary of the US. A large part of the US-China relationship is zero-sum. If America loses, china wins, and vice versa. That relationship is not the same for, say, the US-France relationship.
- patmcc 2y ago
  Ok, replace my sentence with "The New York Times must shut down unless all Chinese foreign owners divest"; does that change the analysis?
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Yes, because the NYT is a publicly traded company. And it is majority-controlled by a single American family - the Sulzbergers. I'm not sure you could argue that a Chinese national owning a single share of NYT stock could have any kind of sway on the operation of the company. Could the same be said for the relationship China has with TikTok?
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    The ban is not rooted in the concept ByteDance has a minority of investors who are Chinese citizens so any comparisons framed around that concept will not change the analysis. The reason for the ban, agree with it or not, is the perceived control and data sharing with the Chinese government made possible by many things (mainly that they are HQ'd in that government's jurisdiction and then have all of these other potentially concerning details, not that they just have one of these other details). If the NYT were seen as being under significant control of and risking sharing too much user data with the Chinese government then it would indeed make sense to apply the same ban. Personally, I'm still on the fence about the ban. On one hand having asymmetry in one side banning such things and the other not is going to be problematic. On the other the inherent problems of banning companies by law. Such things work out in other areas... but will it work out in this specific type of example? Dunno, not 100% convinced either way.
    - gnkyfrg 2y ago
      [dead]
    - patmcc 2y ago
      >>>mainly that they are HQ'd in that government's jurisdiction ByteDance is; TikTok is not. TikTok is headquartered in USA and Taiwan. Why is that not part of the analysis? The CCP can control/influence ByteDance, the US can't do anything about that. But it could do a number of things to prevent ByteDance control/influence on TikTok, and it jumped directly to "must divest". Congress could have passed a law banning TikTok from transmitting any user data back to ByteDance/China, for example. Why not do that, if that was the actual concern?
      - glenstein 2y ago
        Well, reporting as recent as April of 2024 suggested that Bytedance is able to access tiktok user data despite Operation Texas. And generally speaking, we have seen enough in the way of (1) security breaches and (2) leaky promises not to disclose data either to govts or 3rd party data brokers, only for those reassurances to fall flat. I would even go so far as to say that professions to uphold trade agreements or international agreements are uniquely "soft" in their seriousness from China in recent history. Guarantees of insulation from bad actors from major tech companies unfortunately are not generally credible, and what is credible, at least relatively speaking, are guarantees imposed by technology itself such as E2E encryption and zero knowledge architecture, as well as contextual considerations like the long term track record of specific companies, details of their ownership and their physical locations.
        patmcc 2y ago
        The reporting I found (from the Verge) was that an employee of TikTok (in America) would email spreadsheets to executives in China, and other similar cases of US employees having the actual access to data and passing it along to other folks in China. This all suggests to me that the 'Operation Texas' technical controls were actually in place and pretty good (or dude in China would have just run some SQL himself), and what isn't in place is hard process control to prevent US workers from emailing stuff to China. Which, you know, is exactly what Congress could pass a law to deal with.
- ppqqrr 2y ago
  draft published by mistake
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Well, yes. Just like you're allowed to say who your biggest enemy or your best friend is, even if your biggest enemy or best friend don't feel the same way about you. Anyways, who do you think China would say their #1 geopolitical adversary is?
    - ppqqrr 2y ago
      As far as i can tell, the Chinese care mostly about building and investing. They're aware that the US sees them as their "number one enemy" (what a childish, irresponsible way to refer to a nation of a billion, mostly innocent, people), and that the US has maintained its global domination since WWII by political assassinations, bombings, proxy wars, and half-assed failed invasions. My advice? Stop using words like "geopolitical adversary" to mask what you really want to say. This is life, not a chessboard.
      - IncreasePosts 2y ago
        Please tell me what I really want to say, since you apparently know me better than I do.
- ppqqrr 2y ago
  That’s what the China hawks want you to believe, it’s not just a lie but a shameful, war mongering lie. And they will increasingly use that lie to shut people up, shut apps down, until we have no choice but to believe that the Chinese want us dead and we them. It’s textbook propaganda and you’re spreading it. China and the US have been in a massively successful, mutually beneficial global economic partnership for decades. Zero sum my ass. Take a peace pipe, make friends not war.
  - corimaith 2y ago
    Have you gone to Zhihu or Weibo and read what the Chinese are saying there about you guys? Here's a top thread on there with 12,000 likes - https://www.zhihu.com/question/460310859/answer/2046776391 https://www.zhihu.com/question/460310859/answer/2046776391 >I might as well make this clear. >Now, regarding the international situation, The biggest wish of most of us Chinese is that the United States disappears completely and permanently from this beautiful earth. >Because the United States uses its financial, military and other hegemony to exploit the world, destroy the peace and tranquility of the earth, and bring countless troubles to the people of other countries, we sincerely hope that the United States will disappear. >We usually laugh at the large number of infections caused by the new coronavirus pandemic in the United States, not because we have no sympathy, but because we really hope that the United States will disappear. >We usually laugh at the daily gun wars in the United States, not because we don’t sympathize with the families that have been broken up by shootings, but because we really hope that the United States will disappear. >We usually laugh at Americans for legalizing drugs, not because we support drugs, but because we really hope that the United States will disappear.When we scold American Olympic athletes, it's not because we lack sportsmanship, but because we really hope that America will disappear. >We make fun of Trump and Sleepy Joe, not because we look down on these two old men, but because we really hope that the United States will disappear. >We Chinese are hardworking, kind, reasonable, peace-loving and not extreme. But we really don't like America. Really, if the Americans had not fought with us in Korea in the early days of our country, prevented us from liberating Taiwan, provoked a trade war, challenged our sovereignty in the South China Sea, and bullied our Huawei, would we Chinese hate them? And that's what Chinese netziens agree without controversy on one of their biggest social media sites. What about the CCP here? Well if we look at Wang Huning, Chief Ideologue of the CCP, he is explicitly an postliberal who draws from the Schmittian rejection of liberal heterogenity, which he sees as inherently unstable, in favour of a strong, homogenous and centralized state based on traditional values in order to guarantee stability. And if it that's just internally, how do you think a fundamental rejection of heterogenity translates to foreign policy? So yes, whether you think China is a problem, China certainly thinks you are a problem.
- gnkyfrg 2y ago
  [dead]
- thehappypm 2y ago
  This is the reason right here. If TikTok was owned by North Korea, this wouldn't be controversial.
- russli1993 2y ago
  Why not just nuke China then, without these pesky 1.4B people, the world will be a much better place! Otherwise, you are stuck with us, we 1.4B people will never leave this planet. So it's up to you if you want to convert 1.4B of us to your enemy or your friends. But so far, with all the attacks, bullying, theft you are doing to Chinese people, you are not wining any hearts and minds here. Believe it or not, a lot of Chinese people like the USA before 2016. Then with every attack, insult, theft, oppression you are pulling, you are converting your fans to people who despise you. Huawei's executives used to be biggest cheerleaders of USA. Bytedance founder and nearly all Chinese entrepreneurs loved the USA. Now with you stealing their asset, blackmailing, terrorizing them in broad daylight, people are shocked this is the true DNA, color and culture of USA. Protection of private assets? Nope. Freedom of speech? Nope? Humanity, reason, logic, love, trust? Nope? Pursuit of happiness? Nope. Human progress? Nope. Making all people on Earth's lives proper, no poverty, no starvation? Nope. It turns out USA is the biggest pirate, oppressor, dictator, bully in the world. USA say u care about human rights and freedom, what would democratic international relationships? What about the rights and freedom of 1.4B Chinese people to survive, live in dignity, peace, relative prosperity? And spare me Chinese people getting richer is bad thing for the USA. USA companies made trillions of Chinese market and 1.4B Chinese consumers. You only have this market if Chinese people have money. Your companies are stupidly rich and powerful. If you don't think Chinese people benefit your companies, please ban all of your companies from selling to Chinese market. Please no more all talk, no action, ban them now.
reaperducer 2y ago
What if Congress passed a law that said "The New York Times must shut down unless all foreign owners divest"? This already exists in some ways. Foreign companies are not allowed to own American broadcasters. That's why Rupert Murdoch had to become a (dual?) American citizen when he wanted to own Fox television stations in the United States.
twoodfin 2y ago
That's what the question of strict scrutiny vs. intermediate scrutiny vs. rational basis is about. The courts would have to decide the appropriate level of scrutiny given the legal context and then apply that to the law as written. Your hypothetical clearly implicates the Times' speech, so intermediate scrutiny at least would be applied, requiring that the law serve an important governmental purpose. I think that would be a difficult argument for the government to make, especially if the law was selective about which kinds of media institutions could and could not have any foreign ownership in general. The TikTok law is much more specific.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- btown 2y ago
  For those interested, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47986 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47986 is a relatively approachable overview of these guidelines. It's interesting to read the full TikTok opinion https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf and search for "scrutiny" and "tailored" while referencing some of the diagrams from the overview above. It's a good case study of how different levels of scrutiny are evaluated! (Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
- User23 2y ago
  IANAL, but my lay opinion is that thanks to the foreign commerce clause this would be a matter of rational basis. So quite likely Congress could craft such a law and have it hold up, if it could show that foreign control of the NYT (which is incidentally the case) posed a national security concern.
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    IANALE, but any time the exercise of fundamental rights is being constrained, I understand intermediate scrutiny is the floor.
    - 2y ago
jcytong 2y ago
I think the equivalent would be if New York Times is somehow owned by Tencent and given that the Chinese government uses golden shares to control private companies. In that case, I think it's fair game to force NYT to divest or force them to shutdown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_share https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_share
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
insane_dreamer 2y ago
They absolutely could if the NYT was fully owned by a foreign entity, and that entity was a government that adversarial to the US. The issue is not that a company has foreign shareholders -- it's the fact that is under the control of the CCP. This was also an issue when Rupert Murdoch wanted to buy Fox; he was only able to do so once he became a US citizen, for the same reasons. The 1A arguments by ByteDance was a diversionary tactic to shift the conversation away from the real issue (control) -- and judging by all the comments on HN by people who don't understand it's about control, I'd say they were pretty successful.
- I_AM_A_SMURF 2y ago
  In fact, I think it makes the goverment's argument even stronger. Would we allow the NYT to fall in the hands of the CCP? I'd say no way, congress would act way before that's even possible.

by patmcc 2y ago

IncreasePosts 2y ago

Except this isn't a law against any foreign owner, just specifically a foreign owner that is essentially the #1 geopolitical adversary of the US. A large part of the US-China relationship is zero-sum. If America loses, china wins, and vice versa. That relationship is not the same for, say, the US-France relationship.

patmcc 2y ago
Ok, replace my sentence with "The New York Times must shut down unless all Chinese foreign owners divest"; does that change the analysis?
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Yes, because the NYT is a publicly traded company. And it is majority-controlled by a single American family - the Sulzbergers. I'm not sure you could argue that a Chinese national owning a single share of NYT stock could have any kind of sway on the operation of the company. Could the same be said for the relationship China has with TikTok?
- zamadatix 2y ago
  The ban is not rooted in the concept ByteDance has a minority of investors who are Chinese citizens so any comparisons framed around that concept will not change the analysis. The reason for the ban, agree with it or not, is the perceived control and data sharing with the Chinese government made possible by many things (mainly that they are HQ'd in that government's jurisdiction and then have all of these other potentially concerning details, not that they just have one of these other details). If the NYT were seen as being under significant control of and risking sharing too much user data with the Chinese government then it would indeed make sense to apply the same ban. Personally, I'm still on the fence about the ban. On one hand having asymmetry in one side banning such things and the other not is going to be problematic. On the other the inherent problems of banning companies by law. Such things work out in other areas... but will it work out in this specific type of example? Dunno, not 100% convinced either way.
  - gnkyfrg 2y ago
    [dead]
  - patmcc 2y ago
    >>>mainly that they are HQ'd in that government's jurisdiction ByteDance is; TikTok is not. TikTok is headquartered in USA and Taiwan. Why is that not part of the analysis? The CCP can control/influence ByteDance, the US can't do anything about that. But it could do a number of things to prevent ByteDance control/influence on TikTok, and it jumped directly to "must divest". Congress could have passed a law banning TikTok from transmitting any user data back to ByteDance/China, for example. Why not do that, if that was the actual concern?
    - glenstein 2y ago
      Well, reporting as recent as April of 2024 suggested that Bytedance is able to access tiktok user data despite Operation Texas. And generally speaking, we have seen enough in the way of (1) security breaches and (2) leaky promises not to disclose data either to govts or 3rd party data brokers, only for those reassurances to fall flat. I would even go so far as to say that professions to uphold trade agreements or international agreements are uniquely "soft" in their seriousness from China in recent history. Guarantees of insulation from bad actors from major tech companies unfortunately are not generally credible, and what is credible, at least relatively speaking, are guarantees imposed by technology itself such as E2E encryption and zero knowledge architecture, as well as contextual considerations like the long term track record of specific companies, details of their ownership and their physical locations.
      - patmcc 2y ago
        The reporting I found (from the Verge) was that an employee of TikTok (in America) would email spreadsheets to executives in China, and other similar cases of US employees having the actual access to data and passing it along to other folks in China. This all suggests to me that the 'Operation Texas' technical controls were actually in place and pretty good (or dude in China would have just run some SQL himself), and what isn't in place is hard process control to prevent US workers from emailing stuff to China. Which, you know, is exactly what Congress could pass a law to deal with.
ppqqrr 2y ago
draft published by mistake
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Well, yes. Just like you're allowed to say who your biggest enemy or your best friend is, even if your biggest enemy or best friend don't feel the same way about you. Anyways, who do you think China would say their #1 geopolitical adversary is?
  - ppqqrr 2y ago
    As far as i can tell, the Chinese care mostly about building and investing. They're aware that the US sees them as their "number one enemy" (what a childish, irresponsible way to refer to a nation of a billion, mostly innocent, people), and that the US has maintained its global domination since WWII by political assassinations, bombings, proxy wars, and half-assed failed invasions. My advice? Stop using words like "geopolitical adversary" to mask what you really want to say. This is life, not a chessboard.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      Please tell me what I really want to say, since you apparently know me better than I do.
ppqqrr 2y ago
That’s what the China hawks want you to believe, it’s not just a lie but a shameful, war mongering lie. And they will increasingly use that lie to shut people up, shut apps down, until we have no choice but to believe that the Chinese want us dead and we them. It’s textbook propaganda and you’re spreading it. China and the US have been in a massively successful, mutually beneficial global economic partnership for decades. Zero sum my ass. Take a peace pipe, make friends not war.
- corimaith 2y ago
  Have you gone to Zhihu or Weibo and read what the Chinese are saying there about you guys? Here's a top thread on there with 12,000 likes - https://www.zhihu.com/question/460310859/answer/2046776391 https://www.zhihu.com/question/460310859/answer/2046776391 >I might as well make this clear. >Now, regarding the international situation, The biggest wish of most of us Chinese is that the United States disappears completely and permanently from this beautiful earth. >Because the United States uses its financial, military and other hegemony to exploit the world, destroy the peace and tranquility of the earth, and bring countless troubles to the people of other countries, we sincerely hope that the United States will disappear. >We usually laugh at the large number of infections caused by the new coronavirus pandemic in the United States, not because we have no sympathy, but because we really hope that the United States will disappear. >We usually laugh at the daily gun wars in the United States, not because we don’t sympathize with the families that have been broken up by shootings, but because we really hope that the United States will disappear. >We usually laugh at Americans for legalizing drugs, not because we support drugs, but because we really hope that the United States will disappear.When we scold American Olympic athletes, it's not because we lack sportsmanship, but because we really hope that America will disappear. >We make fun of Trump and Sleepy Joe, not because we look down on these two old men, but because we really hope that the United States will disappear. >We Chinese are hardworking, kind, reasonable, peace-loving and not extreme. But we really don't like America. Really, if the Americans had not fought with us in Korea in the early days of our country, prevented us from liberating Taiwan, provoked a trade war, challenged our sovereignty in the South China Sea, and bullied our Huawei, would we Chinese hate them? And that's what Chinese netziens agree without controversy on one of their biggest social media sites. What about the CCP here? Well if we look at Wang Huning, Chief Ideologue of the CCP, he is explicitly an postliberal who draws from the Schmittian rejection of liberal heterogenity, which he sees as inherently unstable, in favour of a strong, homogenous and centralized state based on traditional values in order to guarantee stability. And if it that's just internally, how do you think a fundamental rejection of heterogenity translates to foreign policy? So yes, whether you think China is a problem, China certainly thinks you are a problem.
gnkyfrg 2y ago
[dead]
thehappypm 2y ago
This is the reason right here. If TikTok was owned by North Korea, this wouldn't be controversial.
russli1993 2y ago
Why not just nuke China then, without these pesky 1.4B people, the world will be a much better place! Otherwise, you are stuck with us, we 1.4B people will never leave this planet. So it's up to you if you want to convert 1.4B of us to your enemy or your friends. But so far, with all the attacks, bullying, theft you are doing to Chinese people, you are not wining any hearts and minds here. Believe it or not, a lot of Chinese people like the USA before 2016. Then with every attack, insult, theft, oppression you are pulling, you are converting your fans to people who despise you. Huawei's executives used to be biggest cheerleaders of USA. Bytedance founder and nearly all Chinese entrepreneurs loved the USA. Now with you stealing their asset, blackmailing, terrorizing them in broad daylight, people are shocked this is the true DNA, color and culture of USA. Protection of private assets? Nope. Freedom of speech? Nope? Humanity, reason, logic, love, trust? Nope? Pursuit of happiness? Nope. Human progress? Nope. Making all people on Earth's lives proper, no poverty, no starvation? Nope. It turns out USA is the biggest pirate, oppressor, dictator, bully in the world. USA say u care about human rights and freedom, what would democratic international relationships? What about the rights and freedom of 1.4B Chinese people to survive, live in dignity, peace, relative prosperity? And spare me Chinese people getting richer is bad thing for the USA. USA companies made trillions of Chinese market and 1.4B Chinese consumers. You only have this market if Chinese people have money. Your companies are stupidly rich and powerful. If you don't think Chinese people benefit your companies, please ban all of your companies from selling to Chinese market. Please no more all talk, no action, ban them now.

reaperducer 2y ago

What if Congress passed a law that said "The New York Times must shut down unless all foreign owners divest"? This already exists in some ways. Foreign companies are not allowed to own American broadcasters. That's why Rupert Murdoch had to become a (dual?) American citizen when he wanted to own Fox television stations in the United States.

twoodfin 2y ago

That's what the question of strict scrutiny vs. intermediate scrutiny vs. rational basis is about. The courts would have to decide the appropriate level of scrutiny given the legal context and then apply that to the law as written. Your hypothetical clearly implicates the Times' speech, so intermediate scrutiny at least would be applied, requiring that the law serve an important governmental purpose. I think that would be a difficult argument for the government to make, especially if the law was selective about which kinds of media institutions could and could not have any foreign ownership in general. The TikTok law is much more specific.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
btown 2y ago
For those interested, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47986 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47986 is a relatively approachable overview of these guidelines. It's interesting to read the full TikTok opinion https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf and search for "scrutiny" and "tailored" while referencing some of the diagrams from the overview above. It's a good case study of how different levels of scrutiny are evaluated! (Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
User23 2y ago
IANAL, but my lay opinion is that thanks to the foreign commerce clause this would be a matter of rational basis. So quite likely Congress could craft such a law and have it hold up, if it could show that foreign control of the NYT (which is incidentally the case) posed a national security concern.
- twoodfin 2y ago
  IANALE, but any time the exercise of fundamental rights is being constrained, I understand intermediate scrutiny is the floor.
  - 2y ago

jcytong 2y ago

I think the equivalent would be if New York Times is somehow owned by Tencent and given that the Chinese government uses golden shares to control private companies. In that case, I think it's fair game to force NYT to divest or force them to shutdown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_share https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_share

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

insane_dreamer 2y ago

They absolutely could if the NYT was fully owned by a foreign entity, and that entity was a government that adversarial to the US. The issue is not that a company has foreign shareholders -- it's the fact that is under the control of the CCP. This was also an issue when Rupert Murdoch wanted to buy Fox; he was only able to do so once he became a US citizen, for the same reasons. The 1A arguments by ByteDance was a diversionary tactic to shift the conversation away from the real issue (control) -- and judging by all the comments on HN by people who don't understand it's about control, I'd say they were pretty successful.

I_AM_A_SMURF 2y ago
In fact, I think it makes the goverment's argument even stronger. Would we allow the NYT to fall in the hands of the CCP? I'd say no way, congress would act way before that's even possible.