3 ms·

I don't get why they sold it. If the Chinese government really had a say, simply refusing would have been a better option, as Trump would have never dared shutt

I don't get why they sold it. If the Chinese government really had a say, simply refusing would have been a better option, as Trump would have never dared shutting off an app loved by hundreds of millions of voters.

nirui 9mo ago
Wrong. The definitive factor here is whether the Chinese company wants to put themselves deep in the American political water. To any company, living under a crosshair alone is difficult enough, it becomes even more so when the company is foreign-owned. The sell was a strategically correct decision by ByteDance, they made money out of it and they secured some future income, at least for a short while. But no app or service lives forever anyways, so it's still a good trade. Whether or not the sell could benefit actual American users was never mattered.
- throw310822 9mo ago
  I wasn't talking about Bytedance's point of view, but that of the Chinese government. As a private company without state backing, I agree that selling might have been the best decision to maximise their profits. But could have been politically advantageous for China to veto the sale- even if the platform were politically neutral- because it was basically untouchable, as was already proven by years of delay. They might have used it as a bargaining chip, and then I'd be curious to know what they got back.
maxglute 9mo ago
PRC veto = no algo transfer = bytedance/tiktok US can't be "sold" / total divestiture. New "sale" basically US conceded to PRC JV model, i.e. US companies operating in PRC has local data warehousing requirements, company gets to keep algo and ip, country gets technical custody over data. That's basically extend of thumb on skills PRC had to apply, they're fine with sovereign cloud etc, they weren't with forced divestiture (trying to coerce entire PRC company to flip).

3 ms·

I don't get why they sold it. If the Chinese government really had a say, simply refusing would have been a better option, as Trump would have never dared shutt

by throw310822 9mo ago

nirui 9mo ago
Wrong. The definitive factor here is whether the Chinese company wants to put themselves deep in the American political water. To any company, living under a crosshair alone is difficult enough, it becomes even more so when the company is foreign-owned. The sell was a strategically correct decision by ByteDance, they made money out of it and they secured some future income, at least for a short while. But no app or service lives forever anyways, so it's still a good trade. Whether or not the sell could benefit actual American users was never mattered.
- throw310822 9mo ago
  I wasn't talking about Bytedance's point of view, but that of the Chinese government. As a private company without state backing, I agree that selling might have been the best decision to maximise their profits. But could have been politically advantageous for China to veto the sale- even if the platform were politically neutral- because it was basically untouchable, as was already proven by years of delay. They might have used it as a bargaining chip, and then I'd be curious to know what they got back.
maxglute 9mo ago
PRC veto = no algo transfer = bytedance/tiktok US can't be "sold" / total divestiture. New "sale" basically US conceded to PRC JV model, i.e. US companies operating in PRC has local data warehousing requirements, company gets to keep algo and ip, country gets technical custody over data. That's basically extend of thumb on skills PRC had to apply, they're fine with sovereign cloud etc, they weren't with forced divestiture (trying to coerce entire PRC company to flip).