4 ms·

I'm not defending them here, but the laws in China prevent a sale, so technically they have a duty to uphold China's laws first before upholding their fiduciary

by skizm 2y ago

I'm not defending them here, but the laws in China prevent a sale, so technically they have a duty to uphold China's laws first before upholding their fiduciary responsibility. Same with any American company and following American laws.

pjc50 2y ago
> the laws in China prevent a sale First I've heard of this. The conflicting legal obligations remind me of the Microsoft "safe harbour" case, which is becoming a lot more relevant and still isn't really adequately resolved.
- adastra22 2y ago
  They’re confusing the US TikTok subsidiary with ByteDance parent organization. They were only required to sell the subsidiary. Ironically this would be enforcing the very same law that exists in China, where all companies have to be majority Chinese owned.
  - rfoo 2y ago
    I believe the law mentioned here isn't focused on which organization it is. The law itself basically said you can't export recommendation algorithm. Yes, in the very similar wording as in "you can't export certain GPU chips".
    - adastra22 2y ago
      Which is fine. The whole point of the divestment was to NOT use the CCP-controlled recommendation algorithm.
ants_everywhere 2y ago
I think that's a major part of the concern. Their first duty is to the Chinese Communist Party. Historically all sources of information in communism have to serve the goals of the party above all else, and this is tightly controlled.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  The CCP doesn’t run a communist nation.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    Yeah they’re communist like FedEx is federal.
  - ants_everywhere 2y ago
    Yes I'm aware this trope is applied to every communist country that's ever existed. I've never been in a conversation where it added anything. It's like saying the Pope isn't Christian. It's really a hidden statement about gatekeeping.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      It’s not a hidden statement about anything. China is not communist; communist means something. North Korea isn’t a democratic republic; that also means something. We can go into definitions if you want, but I think this is trivial to observe for China. Edit: I think the distinction is important because the US has a tendency to label things communist before it goes to war with them, whether cold or hot.
    - beepbooptheory 2y ago
      But then how can you use it the other way around, to say that it is bad?
      - ants_everywhere 2y ago
        I think the same way we can talk about monkeys or squirrels. It's a family tree of related ideas. But there's no official checklist of features it has to have. To give an example for comparison, a lot of people want to say socialism is about workers controlling the means of production. But that doesn't come close to covering all of the things that were called socialism that existed before someone proposed that definition. With communism it's similar but at least I'm not aware of any one jingle that people are pushing as the one true definition. But there are definitely lots of people who want to say they understand Marx better than everyone else and the Soviet Union doesn't count as communist because of x. China doesn't count as communist because of y. Etc etc. it's a way to preserve an identity as a communist without having to admit there are any downsides. For what it's worth I'd argue that capitalism is even less well defined and I've heard it used to describe every economic system that's ever existed including all communist countries.
dawnerd 2y ago
They’re majority owned by non Chinese investors. I don’t see how china law would have any say.
- skizm 2y ago
  Google "Golden Share CCP ByteDance". CCP has direct influence over how ByteDance is run.
  - acje 2y ago
    Shares aren’t the sole mechanism for influence though. In Russia there are open sixth floor windows one could fall out of. In China you could disappear to a camp for a few months. Shares are kind of soft in comparison.
- wordofx 2y ago
  lol no.
steveBK123 2y ago
Chinese laws are whatever Xi says they are, so that's where Trump negotiating a deal for himself / his rich buddies comes into play..
- Supermancho 2y ago
  This is correct. His power is effectively absolute. Any time his eye focuses on an issue, the issue is resolved to his specification or heads roll and another puppet is appointed to resolve it so.
  - steveBK123 2y ago
    I spoke a few years back with a tech analyst who specialized in Chinese equities. She herself is a Chinese ex-pat living in the states. She, quite exasperatedly described investing in Chinese equities as "you basically need to guess what Xi is thinking". One day test prep schools are illegal and immediately shut down. Tech CEOs suddenly became pariahs and started getting carted off to re-education camps. Etc. You never know what could happen to an executive, company, or sector.
curt15 2y ago
Does this mean they would be obligated to censor tank man content in the US at the CCP's request?
- enjo 2y ago
  When I worked for an American subsidiary of a Chinese company (Video Games) we were only required to honor censorship requests for Chinese users.
  - tripletao 2y ago
    That's a policy decision by the Chinese government. They still have the authority, but the Streisand effect makes blunt censorship counterproductive in an open society. For example, TikTok took down the viral "Uighur makeup tutorial" but quickly reinstated it after the backlash. That backlash couldn't occur in China, but it can in the USA for as long as uncensored outlets exist. Subtler manipulation still works great, and the opacity of algorithmic content recommendation makes that an ideal instrument. Nobody outside ByteDance knows to what extent the CCP is putting its thumb on that scale already, but they certainly have the power to.
    - throw283724 2y ago
      If we're talking about the same video, the reason they initially took it down is because she had pictures of Bin Laden and was praising him.
      - tripletao 2y ago
        I'm talking about this one: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/an-update-on-recent-content-and-account-questions https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/an-update-on-recent-conten... A different account operated by the same user was banned for something relating to an image of bin Laden in a different video. I've been unable to locate that video. I haven't found any reference stating that she praised him. She described her use of that image as satirical, and TikTok itself seems to recognize that (but stands by that ban): > *While we recognize that this video may have been intended as satire, our policies on this front are currently strict. In any case, the video in question is the Uighur one. TikTok quickly stated that one was a "human moderation error" and reversed it. My point is irrespective of whether their rules were morally correct or correctly applied, though--whatever those merits, they clearly drew more attention to the topic by censoring here, not less. So it's not surprising they don't apply blunt Chinese-style censorship outside China, since it's counterproductive without Chinese-style control of all major media.

by skizm 2y ago

pjc50 2y ago

> the laws in China prevent a sale First I've heard of this. The conflicting legal obligations remind me of the Microsoft "safe harbour" case, which is becoming a lot more relevant and still isn't really adequately resolved.

adastra22 2y ago
They’re confusing the US TikTok subsidiary with ByteDance parent organization. They were only required to sell the subsidiary. Ironically this would be enforcing the very same law that exists in China, where all companies have to be majority Chinese owned.
- rfoo 2y ago
  I believe the law mentioned here isn't focused on which organization it is. The law itself basically said you can't export recommendation algorithm. Yes, in the very similar wording as in "you can't export certain GPU chips".
  - adastra22 2y ago
    Which is fine. The whole point of the divestment was to NOT use the CCP-controlled recommendation algorithm.

ants_everywhere 2y ago

I think that's a major part of the concern. Their first duty is to the Chinese Communist Party. Historically all sources of information in communism have to serve the goals of the party above all else, and this is tightly controlled.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
The CCP doesn’t run a communist nation.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  Yeah they’re communist like FedEx is federal.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  Yes I'm aware this trope is applied to every communist country that's ever existed. I've never been in a conversation where it added anything. It's like saying the Pope isn't Christian. It's really a hidden statement about gatekeeping.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    It’s not a hidden statement about anything. China is not communist; communist means something. North Korea isn’t a democratic republic; that also means something. We can go into definitions if you want, but I think this is trivial to observe for China. Edit: I think the distinction is important because the US has a tendency to label things communist before it goes to war with them, whether cold or hot.
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago
    But then how can you use it the other way around, to say that it is bad?
    - ants_everywhere 2y ago
      I think the same way we can talk about monkeys or squirrels. It's a family tree of related ideas. But there's no official checklist of features it has to have. To give an example for comparison, a lot of people want to say socialism is about workers controlling the means of production. But that doesn't come close to covering all of the things that were called socialism that existed before someone proposed that definition. With communism it's similar but at least I'm not aware of any one jingle that people are pushing as the one true definition. But there are definitely lots of people who want to say they understand Marx better than everyone else and the Soviet Union doesn't count as communist because of x. China doesn't count as communist because of y. Etc etc. it's a way to preserve an identity as a communist without having to admit there are any downsides. For what it's worth I'd argue that capitalism is even less well defined and I've heard it used to describe every economic system that's ever existed including all communist countries.

dawnerd 2y ago

They’re majority owned by non Chinese investors. I don’t see how china law would have any say.

skizm 2y ago
Google "Golden Share CCP ByteDance". CCP has direct influence over how ByteDance is run.
- acje 2y ago
  Shares aren’t the sole mechanism for influence though. In Russia there are open sixth floor windows one could fall out of. In China you could disappear to a camp for a few months. Shares are kind of soft in comparison.
wordofx 2y ago
lol no.

steveBK123 2y ago

Chinese laws are whatever Xi says they are, so that's where Trump negotiating a deal for himself / his rich buddies comes into play..

Supermancho 2y ago
This is correct. His power is effectively absolute. Any time his eye focuses on an issue, the issue is resolved to his specification or heads roll and another puppet is appointed to resolve it so.
- steveBK123 2y ago
  I spoke a few years back with a tech analyst who specialized in Chinese equities. She herself is a Chinese ex-pat living in the states. She, quite exasperatedly described investing in Chinese equities as "you basically need to guess what Xi is thinking". One day test prep schools are illegal and immediately shut down. Tech CEOs suddenly became pariahs and started getting carted off to re-education camps. Etc. You never know what could happen to an executive, company, or sector.

curt15 2y ago

Does this mean they would be obligated to censor tank man content in the US at the CCP's request?

enjo 2y ago
When I worked for an American subsidiary of a Chinese company (Video Games) we were only required to honor censorship requests for Chinese users.
- tripletao 2y ago
  That's a policy decision by the Chinese government. They still have the authority, but the Streisand effect makes blunt censorship counterproductive in an open society. For example, TikTok took down the viral "Uighur makeup tutorial" but quickly reinstated it after the backlash. That backlash couldn't occur in China, but it can in the USA for as long as uncensored outlets exist. Subtler manipulation still works great, and the opacity of algorithmic content recommendation makes that an ideal instrument. Nobody outside ByteDance knows to what extent the CCP is putting its thumb on that scale already, but they certainly have the power to.
  - throw283724 2y ago
    If we're talking about the same video, the reason they initially took it down is because she had pictures of Bin Laden and was praising him.
    - tripletao 2y ago
      I'm talking about this one: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/an-update-on-recent-content-and-account-questions https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/an-update-on-recent-conten... A different account operated by the same user was banned for something relating to an image of bin Laden in a different video. I've been unable to locate that video. I haven't found any reference stating that she praised him. She described her use of that image as satirical, and TikTok itself seems to recognize that (but stands by that ban): > *While we recognize that this video may have been intended as satire, our policies on this front are currently strict. In any case, the video in question is the Uighur one. TikTok quickly stated that one was a "human moderation error" and reversed it. My point is irrespective of whether their rules were morally correct or correctly applied, though--whatever those merits, they clearly drew more attention to the topic by censoring here, not less. So it's not surprising they don't apply blunt Chinese-style censorship outside China, since it's counterproductive without Chinese-style control of all major media.