3 ms·

> they didn't ban the app. they said china couldn't own it. but china would rather not sell it. this doesn't get enough attention. ByteDance could have easily

> they didn't ban the app. they said china couldn't own it. but china would rather not sell it. this doesn't get enough attention. ByteDance could have easily partitioned off the US environment and made bank selling it. but the influence potential was too juicy for CCP to let ByteDance sell it. even if the CCP wasn't manipulating the algorithm to sway US public opinion - I don't know whether they were or not - having that option open was far too valuable to part with it. and I think they were playing a game of chicken, honestly. they bargained for the US government being too dysfunctional - and TikTok too popular - for the ban to happen.

SilasX 2y ago
>this doesn't get enough attention. ByteDance could have easily partitioned off the US environment and made bank selling it. but the influence potential was too juicy for CCP to let ByteDance sell it. I think that's kind of trivializing the position they were in. Would you take the same tone if it were an American startup that were forced to sell a big chunk of itself pre-IPO? Would you roll your eyes at them for "being greedy" at any indication of pushback against such a requirement? I don't think the law is necessarily bad, considering the national security implications, but it's a cop-out to dismiss the burden of being forced to sell a major part of an enterprise as no big deal and the owner as just stubborn.
- sterlind 2y ago
  > Would you take the same tone if it were an American startup that were forced to sell a big chunk of itself pre-IPO? Would you roll your eyes at them for "being greedy" at any indication of pushback against such a requirement? to be clear, I don't think ByteDance was greedy. I suspect ByteDance would have been happy to cash out. but it wasn't up to them, they needed approval from the CCP. if a US social media startup somehow got extremely popular in China, I'd understand and even empathize with China requiring it be sold. they'd be right to mistrust us.
  - SilasX 2y ago
    The question was whether you would roll your eyes at the startup and have no sympathy for that startup because of the "big chunk of change" they could have gotten selling it. You can both believe that the requirement is justified and that it comes at a big cost for the org that would have to sell. They aren't mutually exclusive.
  - creato 2y ago
    > if a US social media startup somehow got extremely popular in China China avoided this problem by ensuring that never happened in the first place.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      No, we've seen this happen before in China, where some US company becomes popular, e.g. millions of people in China have bought iPhones. Then China requires the company's operations in China to be more than 50% owned by China. The TikTok thing is very much "what's good for the goose", but it's also the US acting more like China the authoritarian country.
      - creato 2y ago
        > US social media startup
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        That also happened, e.g. YouTube (Google) operated in China prior to 2009, but Google US didn't much like censoring things on behalf of China.
      - portaouflop 2y ago
        Apple China (if such a thing exists?) is owned >50% by the Chinese state? I couldn’t figure out if that is actually true
        2y ago

SilasX 2y ago

>this doesn't get enough attention. ByteDance could have easily partitioned off the US environment and made bank selling it. but the influence potential was too juicy for CCP to let ByteDance sell it. I think that's kind of trivializing the position they were in. Would you take the same tone if it were an American startup that were forced to sell a big chunk of itself pre-IPO? Would you roll your eyes at them for "being greedy" at any indication of pushback against such a requirement? I don't think the law is necessarily bad, considering the national security implications, but it's a cop-out to dismiss the burden of being forced to sell a major part of an enterprise as no big deal and the owner as just stubborn.

sterlind 2y ago
> Would you take the same tone if it were an American startup that were forced to sell a big chunk of itself pre-IPO? Would you roll your eyes at them for "being greedy" at any indication of pushback against such a requirement? to be clear, I don't think ByteDance was greedy. I suspect ByteDance would have been happy to cash out. but it wasn't up to them, they needed approval from the CCP. if a US social media startup somehow got extremely popular in China, I'd understand and even empathize with China requiring it be sold. they'd be right to mistrust us.
- SilasX 2y ago
  The question was whether you would roll your eyes at the startup and have no sympathy for that startup because of the "big chunk of change" they could have gotten selling it. You can both believe that the requirement is justified and that it comes at a big cost for the org that would have to sell. They aren't mutually exclusive.
- creato 2y ago
  > if a US social media startup somehow got extremely popular in China China avoided this problem by ensuring that never happened in the first place.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    No, we've seen this happen before in China, where some US company becomes popular, e.g. millions of people in China have bought iPhones. Then China requires the company's operations in China to be more than 50% owned by China. The TikTok thing is very much "what's good for the goose", but it's also the US acting more like China the authoritarian country.
    - creato 2y ago
      > US social media startup
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        That also happened, e.g. YouTube (Google) operated in China prior to 2009, but Google US didn't much like censoring things on behalf of China.
    - portaouflop 2y ago
      Apple China (if such a thing exists?) is owned >50% by the Chinese state? I couldn’t figure out if that is actually true
      - 2y ago