8 ms·

> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately u

> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_Un...

eru 2y ago
Well, different standards apply for government than for private companies.
scarab92 2y ago
Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it. There’s always a chance you don’t come back, and there’s likely to be a loss of marketshare for simply being unavailable for a period and forcing users to trial alternatives. But, TikTok is not purely commercially focused. A majority of the voting stock of ByteDance is held by the Chinese government, who clearly see non-financial strategic value in controlling it. Otherwise, they likely could have negotiated a spin out the US operation, whereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.
- kelseydh 2y ago
  Can you imagine any other country making this demand and it being taken seriously? It is negotiation by means of extortion. Why are American tech companies entitled to the profits of an internationally used app?
  - bluesnews 2y ago
    They aren't demanding a sale. They are just saying they can't operate in the country if they don't sell. They have a choice to leave the country or follow the rules.
    - Timber-6539 2y ago
      Let us cannibalize your app because it's so successful at doing X that we can't compete with you. It's a bizarre ultimatum for the owners of the app.
      - wqaatwt 2y ago
        Seems like the policies used by the Chinese government for decade are becoming more internationally popular (for better or for worse..). I can’t really feel bad about when it’s the same deal they offer Western companies. Well.. to be fair Google or FB couldn’t even get anywhere close to where TikTok is.
      - xcrunner529 2y ago
        Where you launch in a place where the government actually controls your company, well, that's a decision you made.
  - Pyxl101 2y ago
    Well, that's pretty much how China behaves with respect to foreign companies operating in China. They all need to be joint partnerships with owners in China.
    - kelseydh 2y ago
      The world is more than just China and the United States. That was the point of my original comment. The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world. No other country could get away with demanding this.
      - josephcsible 2y ago
        > The United States here feels entitled to own and run It doesn't have to be the United States. It just has to be anyone other than Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia.
      - fc417fc802 2y ago
        > The world is more than just China and the United States. But this particular situation is not. A Chinese controlled company that operates in the US. If you want access to $CC market you are subject to $CC's rules. Other countries do exactly the same thing (aside from China, GDPR comes to mind) so it's unclear what the basis for your complaint is here.
      - scarab92 2y ago
        > The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world. This isn’t correct. The US law only applies to the services provided within the US. ByteDance could spin out the US userbase while retaining the rest of the userbase. Many US companies already have to do exactly this for their Chinese userbase. Spin it off to a JV with a Chinese partner. I’m not aware of anyone doing this, but you could even have a content syndication model whereby the global TikTok and the US TikTok share a common pool of content and username reservations so that both services appear global to their users, but with separate companies controlling distribution of their own apps and the recommendation model used to serve content.
  - scarab92 2y ago
    You can’t claim this is unfair to China, when China requires foreign companies enter into joint ventures which give the Chinese partner majority voting share. The US is simply reciprocating.
    - kelseydh 2y ago
      I don't think it's unfair to China, I think it's unfair to European countries, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the world that uses TikTok who are watching the U.S. demand it is entitled to run and control TikTok. This would be like the U.S. forcing Spotify's Swedish headquarters to accept U.S. ownership.
      - timhowwan 2y ago
        Then Europe should grows some balls and ban TikTok. China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary, aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe. And trying to destroy Europe’s car industry via state subsidized EVs India literally banned TikTok overnight when China killed Indian soldiers in 2020
        courseofaction 2y ago
        You're really not going to enjoy history class when it comes to American empire
        kelnos 2y ago
        I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining dominant than ceding that position of power to China, regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over time. And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would be useful to ask them why they think a country like China (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their interests than the US, even with someone like Trump in power.
        hnlmorg 2y ago
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    They’re not. Why are you making that assumption? The US is saying that in order to access the US market they have to divest. They’re free to sell at a fair market price - including to European buyers. They can also choose not to and leave the US market and keep operating elsewhere. They can also just sell the US business and keep everything else the way it is.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      To be fair being legally mandated to sell significantly reduces that “free market price”. Technically it’s certainly not “free” anymore..
  - Roark66 2y ago
    Because it deals with an actual enemy pumping propaganda into your country's citizen's ears. It's a legitimate threat to national security. And no, not just the US does this. (I assume you mean free countries, not dictatorship like China, Russia or North Korea that ban everything they don't like). Europe banned Russian propaganda outlet RT a couple of years ago, on security grounds. It's just that US prefers the soft-soft approach. Don't ban them, let them "divest". No. It doesn't work. It should be banned end of story. I guarantee a genuine competitor from the US or an allied country would make an alternative quite soon. Would be so addictive and equally brain rotting? Probably not, so people who enjoyed it before would complain. Fine, let them go join Douyin or other Chinese platform and see for themselves how "freedom of speech"looks like in China. As for anyone who might come and say "they're not doing anything wrong". They are and you're naive for not seeing it. Every company in China is an arm of the state. As an example see how Bytedance released an ebook reader in the US with an AI assistant that tells you things like "nothing happened in 1989 on Tiananmen square", there is no genocide in Xinjiang, it is inappropriate to question and critique the Chinese communist party, China never attacked anyone,ever but it's perfectly fine to criticise every other single country on earth and it is ready to give you a litany of misdeeds any other country on earth ever did. Except China. Do you think a company like that owning what's essentially a monopoly on news for the young people is good? No it is not, and any sane politician would ban it long time ago. The fact Trump did this move worries me for his other decisions in future .
    - lenkite 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - rwyinuse 2y ago
        All media has propaganda. But if you objectively look at what Russia is doing in Ukraine, and then look at RT's coverage of the war, you must be pretty brainwashed to trust RT any more than American media. There are plenty of corruption and issues in EU, some of which RT may have covered legitimately, but at least we're not intentionally massacring civilians and sending our poor and minorities to die as cannon fodder in an useless invasion. There's a reason why all European neighbours of Russia have or want to join NATO, and that is its imperialistic and aggressive policies. You should come visit us in Finland or maybe our neighbour Estonia and really see what ordinary people have to say about Russia. Real people, who actually live next to them.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    Surely this is sarcasm? Yes absolutely. China. You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there. And why do you think Google and Facebook don’t even offer their services there?
    - 55555 2y ago
      > You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there. I'm not sure how generally you meant to speak, but this is no longer true as a general claim. "As of November 1, 2024, China has removed all restrictions on foreign investment in the manufacturing sector, allowing foreign investors, including Americans, to own up to 100% equity in Chinese manufacturing enterprises."
      - wqaatwt 2y ago
        True. I missed that. Operating an online social network has nothing to do with manufacturing though. And investments into various telecommunications related areas are still restricted or outright banned. So foreign founded/owned TV stations like Fox News could never exist in China (for better or for worse).
    - olalonde 2y ago
      What's your source on that? Apple, Microsoft, Tesla and Amazon all operate in China and I don't believe they had to give up 50% of their local subsidiary. Google withdrew from China because it didn't want to comply with local laws (e.g. censorship).
      - wqaatwt 2y ago
        They changed it last year. Prior to that you generally could only have a 50% stake manufacturing companies (obviously doesn’t apply to Apple cause they never did any). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_list_of_foreign_investment_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_list_of_foreign_inv... Passenger cars were removed in 2021. However: > .. (ii) news agencies, (iii) editing, publishing and production of books, newspapers, periodicals, audio-visual products and electronic publications, (iv) all levels of broadcasting stations, television stations, radio and television channel and frequency, radio and television transmission networks and the engagement in the video on demand business of radio and TV, (v) radio and television program production and operation as well as (vi) film production companies, distribution companies, cinema companies and the introduction of films are still prohibited. So good-luck to any Australians and Brits who want to operate Fox news style networks in China. There are other telecommunications related areas which are restricted and not prohibited. Not sure where would TikTok fall into exactly but it’s probably bot manufacturing.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- ta20240528 2y ago
  > hereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer. Keen to see this opinion when the Chinese government demands the same from Apple. 'cos we're all equal, no?
  - bhhaskin 2y ago
    They already do and it has been that way since "opening" up their markets.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US), and already bans quite a few foreign companies from operating on the Chinese Internet (again, unlike the US). I imagine Apple already complies with whatever they need to comply with in order to make the Chinese government happy. > 'cos we're all equal, no? No, we absolutely aren't. The Chinese government has ensured for decades now that foreign businesses have only tightly controlled access to the Chinese people while Chinese-owned (i.e., easily controllable by the Chinese government) businesses have advantages not given to outsiders. (And those outsiders need to open up a Chinese subsidiary that is majority-owned by Chinese investors/companies.) On the other hand, most Western countries have given Chinese companies near-unfettered access to their markets. If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.
    - licenede 2y ago
      Actually what’s scary for Apple, and really for all companies with assets or factories still in China is that recently China prevented Apple from shipping its own equipments out of China to India. China is so fearful of even more unemployments that it is now willing to upset one of its largest employer. Foxconn stops sending Chinese workers to India iPhone factories In addition, equipment shipments are delayed, potentially disrupting next-generation iPhone production in India. https://restofworld.org/2025/china-foxconn-factoriesfoxconn-stops-sending-chinese-workers-to-india-iphone-factories/ https://restofworld.org/2025/china-foxconn-factoriesfoxconn-... You really have to be braindead as a COO if you do not have contingency plan to move stuff out of China this year.
- maxglute 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    Is HN just…okay with slurs now?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- onethought 2y ago
  Which specific owner is the Chinese government?
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it. When you are owned/controlled by an authoritative government you have the responsibility to not get disappeared. Just ask Jack Ma.
EDEdDNEdDYFaN 2y ago
lol perfect
neycoda 2y ago
The government is not a company regardless of how many doofuses want to run it like one.

eru 2y ago

Well, different standards apply for government than for private companies.

scarab92 2y ago

Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it. There’s always a chance you don’t come back, and there’s likely to be a loss of marketshare for simply being unavailable for a period and forcing users to trial alternatives. But, TikTok is not purely commercially focused. A majority of the voting stock of ByteDance is held by the Chinese government, who clearly see non-financial strategic value in controlling it. Otherwise, they likely could have negotiated a spin out the US operation, whereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.

kelseydh 2y ago
Can you imagine any other country making this demand and it being taken seriously? It is negotiation by means of extortion. Why are American tech companies entitled to the profits of an internationally used app?
- bluesnews 2y ago
  They aren't demanding a sale. They are just saying they can't operate in the country if they don't sell. They have a choice to leave the country or follow the rules.
  - Timber-6539 2y ago
    Let us cannibalize your app because it's so successful at doing X that we can't compete with you. It's a bizarre ultimatum for the owners of the app.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      Seems like the policies used by the Chinese government for decade are becoming more internationally popular (for better or for worse..). I can’t really feel bad about when it’s the same deal they offer Western companies. Well.. to be fair Google or FB couldn’t even get anywhere close to where TikTok is.
    - xcrunner529 2y ago
      Where you launch in a place where the government actually controls your company, well, that's a decision you made.
- Pyxl101 2y ago
  Well, that's pretty much how China behaves with respect to foreign companies operating in China. They all need to be joint partnerships with owners in China.
  - kelseydh 2y ago
    The world is more than just China and the United States. That was the point of my original comment. The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world. No other country could get away with demanding this.
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      > The United States here feels entitled to own and run It doesn't have to be the United States. It just has to be anyone other than Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia.
    - fc417fc802 2y ago
      > The world is more than just China and the United States. But this particular situation is not. A Chinese controlled company that operates in the US. If you want access to $CC market you are subject to $CC's rules. Other countries do exactly the same thing (aside from China, GDPR comes to mind) so it's unclear what the basis for your complaint is here.
    - scarab92 2y ago
      > The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world. This isn’t correct. The US law only applies to the services provided within the US. ByteDance could spin out the US userbase while retaining the rest of the userbase. Many US companies already have to do exactly this for their Chinese userbase. Spin it off to a JV with a Chinese partner. I’m not aware of anyone doing this, but you could even have a content syndication model whereby the global TikTok and the US TikTok share a common pool of content and username reservations so that both services appear global to their users, but with separate companies controlling distribution of their own apps and the recommendation model used to serve content.
- scarab92 2y ago
  You can’t claim this is unfair to China, when China requires foreign companies enter into joint ventures which give the Chinese partner majority voting share. The US is simply reciprocating.
  - kelseydh 2y ago
    I don't think it's unfair to China, I think it's unfair to European countries, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the world that uses TikTok who are watching the U.S. demand it is entitled to run and control TikTok. This would be like the U.S. forcing Spotify's Swedish headquarters to accept U.S. ownership.
    - timhowwan 2y ago
      Then Europe should grows some balls and ban TikTok. China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary, aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe. And trying to destroy Europe’s car industry via state subsidized EVs India literally banned TikTok overnight when China killed Indian soldiers in 2020
      - courseofaction 2y ago
        You're really not going to enjoy history class when it comes to American empire
        kelnos 2y ago
        I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining dominant than ceding that position of power to China, regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over time. And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would be useful to ask them why they think a country like China (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their interests than the US, even with someone like Trump in power.
        hnlmorg 2y ago
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  They’re not. Why are you making that assumption? The US is saying that in order to access the US market they have to divest. They’re free to sell at a fair market price - including to European buyers. They can also choose not to and leave the US market and keep operating elsewhere. They can also just sell the US business and keep everything else the way it is.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    To be fair being legally mandated to sell significantly reduces that “free market price”. Technically it’s certainly not “free” anymore..
- Roark66 2y ago
  Because it deals with an actual enemy pumping propaganda into your country's citizen's ears. It's a legitimate threat to national security. And no, not just the US does this. (I assume you mean free countries, not dictatorship like China, Russia or North Korea that ban everything they don't like). Europe banned Russian propaganda outlet RT a couple of years ago, on security grounds. It's just that US prefers the soft-soft approach. Don't ban them, let them "divest". No. It doesn't work. It should be banned end of story. I guarantee a genuine competitor from the US or an allied country would make an alternative quite soon. Would be so addictive and equally brain rotting? Probably not, so people who enjoyed it before would complain. Fine, let them go join Douyin or other Chinese platform and see for themselves how "freedom of speech"looks like in China. As for anyone who might come and say "they're not doing anything wrong". They are and you're naive for not seeing it. Every company in China is an arm of the state. As an example see how Bytedance released an ebook reader in the US with an AI assistant that tells you things like "nothing happened in 1989 on Tiananmen square", there is no genocide in Xinjiang, it is inappropriate to question and critique the Chinese communist party, China never attacked anyone,ever but it's perfectly fine to criticise every other single country on earth and it is ready to give you a litany of misdeeds any other country on earth ever did. Except China. Do you think a company like that owning what's essentially a monopoly on news for the young people is good? No it is not, and any sane politician would ban it long time ago. The fact Trump did this move worries me for his other decisions in future .
  - lenkite 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - rwyinuse 2y ago
      All media has propaganda. But if you objectively look at what Russia is doing in Ukraine, and then look at RT's coverage of the war, you must be pretty brainwashed to trust RT any more than American media. There are plenty of corruption and issues in EU, some of which RT may have covered legitimately, but at least we're not intentionally massacring civilians and sending our poor and minorities to die as cannon fodder in an useless invasion. There's a reason why all European neighbours of Russia have or want to join NATO, and that is its imperialistic and aggressive policies. You should come visit us in Finland or maybe our neighbour Estonia and really see what ordinary people have to say about Russia. Real people, who actually live next to them.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  Surely this is sarcasm? Yes absolutely. China. You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there. And why do you think Google and Facebook don’t even offer their services there?
  - 55555 2y ago
    > You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there. I'm not sure how generally you meant to speak, but this is no longer true as a general claim. "As of November 1, 2024, China has removed all restrictions on foreign investment in the manufacturing sector, allowing foreign investors, including Americans, to own up to 100% equity in Chinese manufacturing enterprises."
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      True. I missed that. Operating an online social network has nothing to do with manufacturing though. And investments into various telecommunications related areas are still restricted or outright banned. So foreign founded/owned TV stations like Fox News could never exist in China (for better or for worse).
  - olalonde 2y ago
    What's your source on that? Apple, Microsoft, Tesla and Amazon all operate in China and I don't believe they had to give up 50% of their local subsidiary. Google withdrew from China because it didn't want to comply with local laws (e.g. censorship).
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      They changed it last year. Prior to that you generally could only have a 50% stake manufacturing companies (obviously doesn’t apply to Apple cause they never did any). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_list_of_foreign_investment_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_list_of_foreign_inv... Passenger cars were removed in 2021. However: > .. (ii) news agencies, (iii) editing, publishing and production of books, newspapers, periodicals, audio-visual products and electronic publications, (iv) all levels of broadcasting stations, television stations, radio and television channel and frequency, radio and television transmission networks and the engagement in the video on demand business of radio and TV, (v) radio and television program production and operation as well as (vi) film production companies, distribution companies, cinema companies and the introduction of films are still prohibited. So good-luck to any Australians and Brits who want to operate Fox news style networks in China. There are other telecommunications related areas which are restricted and not prohibited. Not sure where would TikTok fall into exactly but it’s probably bot manufacturing.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ta20240528 2y ago
> hereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer. Keen to see this opinion when the Chinese government demands the same from Apple. 'cos we're all equal, no?
- bhhaskin 2y ago
  They already do and it has been that way since "opening" up their markets.
- kelnos 2y ago
  The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US), and already bans quite a few foreign companies from operating on the Chinese Internet (again, unlike the US). I imagine Apple already complies with whatever they need to comply with in order to make the Chinese government happy. > 'cos we're all equal, no? No, we absolutely aren't. The Chinese government has ensured for decades now that foreign businesses have only tightly controlled access to the Chinese people while Chinese-owned (i.e., easily controllable by the Chinese government) businesses have advantages not given to outsiders. (And those outsiders need to open up a Chinese subsidiary that is majority-owned by Chinese investors/companies.) On the other hand, most Western countries have given Chinese companies near-unfettered access to their markets. If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.
  - licenede 2y ago
    Actually what’s scary for Apple, and really for all companies with assets or factories still in China is that recently China prevented Apple from shipping its own equipments out of China to India. China is so fearful of even more unemployments that it is now willing to upset one of its largest employer. Foxconn stops sending Chinese workers to India iPhone factories In addition, equipment shipments are delayed, potentially disrupting next-generation iPhone production in India. https://restofworld.org/2025/china-foxconn-factoriesfoxconn-stops-sending-chinese-workers-to-india-iphone-factories/ https://restofworld.org/2025/china-foxconn-factoriesfoxconn-... You really have to be braindead as a COO if you do not have contingency plan to move stuff out of China this year.
maxglute 2y ago
[flagged]
- mullingitover 2y ago
  Is HN just…okay with slurs now?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
onethought 2y ago
Which specific owner is the Chinese government?
throw0101c 2y ago
> Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it. When you are owned/controlled by an authoritative government you have the responsibility to not get disappeared. Just ask Jack Ma.

EDEdDNEdDYFaN 2y ago

lol perfect

neycoda 2y ago

The government is not a company regardless of how many doofuses want to run it like one.