It never was about ByteDance. It's the Chinese government who will decide.
From their point of view, the right strategic move is to shut it down. Even if every other country bans the app it doesn't impact them much. Also they hate doing things that make then look weak.
If they sell, they lose their influence. If they shut down, same thing.
> It never was about ByteDance. It's the Chinese government who will decide.
This makes for a pithy statement, but is it actually true? Obviously the Chinese government has a lot of influence on Chinese companies, but do they actually dictate strategic direction like this?
> Any medium/large company in China has a government representative embedded in the exec team.
These two aren't the same thing. Obviously if you go directly against the Chinese government you're liable to disappear for a while, like Jack Ma. I just don't think the Chinese government gives that much of a shit about a social media company. Despite all the hysteria about TikTok being uniquely corrosive to society you can see most of the same content and trends on homegrown competitors like Instagram.
I thought all businesses in China operate at the pleasure of the government?
Most recent attempt I can think of bucking that trend is Ant group and Jack Ma, who presumably still is in a room somewhere and not a dark hole in the ground.
ByteDance has a number of big US investors. A sale or divestiture of Chinese ownership would be good for these investors. From a purely financial view, selling is the right move. The only reason not to sell is because a player who doesn't care about money is putting the brakes on.
I also think if they pull out of the US, it's not improbable for the EU to also push TikTok to make changes.
It's completely sensible - Why would you just hand over your crown jewel to a competitor?
(At the same time, it doesn't seem like China really cares for its tech industry, given how many times they've sabotaged it. It is possible they don't care about what happens with TikTok.)
its not that they dont care, they care a lot. chinese way of thinking is if you know how its made/how it works you can always make more, make another. no company is above the govt, china.
Western companies have largely taken the same approach and exited markets that banned them rather than sell. Whether it's Google, YouTube, X, Instagram, or Facebook, they didn't sell either.
Is disclosing the algorithm a mandatory condition of the sale? If I were them I'd not give away the algorithm. I'd sell the name, branding, userbase, and let them lease the servers until they could host it in their own datacenter -- at which point they'd have access to most of the code, but not the algorithm (if the algorithm is of special value).
Not really. ByteDance is based in Singapore. They can sell it to whoever they like, but most of their operations are based in China and even if they could be sold, who in their right mind would buy that? Because it doesn’t solve the real issue - 100,000 employees in China is a dead end for any acquirer.
The idea of something to replace TikTok is exciting. With each new social network there is so much opportunity to start a new following and it’s easier to go viral. The first rounds of ads are also more effective.
Nothing will be the same thing. The algorithm Tiktok had in 2020 was one of a kind.
A person with a phone could go viral and reach thousands if not millions in a day.
Today, Tiktok has largely throttled the viral nature of their algorithm. You have spend money on paid advertising if you want to reach millions of people. Yes, there are still videos that get millions of views, but it is hit or miss now.
I suspect this has more to do with getting TikTok users riled up with the hopes of influencing change. If they do sell, I don't see anybody trying to low ball them since they know what they are getting.
US businesses that try to compete with big tech don't stand a chance no matter how innovative because they'll either be bought and killed, or killed/suppressed through some illegal business practices from big tech that government won't or can't stop.
When an innovative foreign company comes in that Facebook/Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon/etc can't buy, the government ends up killing it.
Optimistically, this will create an opportunity for a new business to come in and fill the void left by TikTok's departure. Realistically, that's going to all get gobbled up by a big tech company in the end.
Can you elaborate? I was looking up information about this and saw Indians could continue using the app if already installed, and that there are trivial workarounds to download it if not installed. I would have expected a ban like this to have had a relatively small effect.
For ByteDance it's a bad look. The Chinese government probably doesn't look at it that way. From their perspective, allowing ByteDance to sell looks a lot like allowing the US to dictate Chinese policy, which is anathema to party priorities.
Who even knows what the buyers are buying? The major investor groups that have shown interest so far didn’t seem that savvy. TikTok would sell the user base and basic functionality, but no way they will sell the magic algorithm that no other company STILL has yet to replicate
It would be on the buyer to prove / challenge it’s not the same algorithm and that would be almost impossible to prove
Who knows what TikTok is even worth without its highly addictive engine behind it
Reply All did a pretty good episode about it. It’s just really good at pushing the exact content you will interact with, 1000x better than anything Meta owns
I've noticed my TikTok feed is full of "Bosnian Serbs want emancipation, war is looming on Western Balkan" type of videos lately. My guess is Russia and China want another war far from Ukraine so western nations focus less on Ukraine.
If you think about it, social media is a great propaganda tool if you are a bad state actor. Content for young people and indoctrination delivered right to their eyeballs.
There is absolutely no way to draw general conclusions like this from one single person's experience on the FYP algorithm - it's very different depending on who is viewing it.
I wonder if this choice will have an effect on the upcoming US elections, with TikTok users blaming the current government for losing access to their favourite app.
Given the impetus for some congress critters to change their No vote to a Yes vote was the very young teenagers calling their offices and having zero idea what this is about or what to ask for simply based on Tiktok's fearmongering, not much.
Maybe in another four years when they're old enough to vote.
It will, and it's blatant proof the power tiktok has on the minds of americans. The CEO has already put out a propaganda piece talking about how Tiktok being banned is a travesty to American free speech.
Unsurprising, I suppose. Google didn't sell their China operations to the Chinese government's choice. It's a sign of declining US power that this nation has to resort to the same moves as China does. Previously, American stuff was just better and protectionism wasn't required. Now the Chinede thing is better so we have to do this.
Can't be helped. Everything must play out this way. We're too weak to just beat them so we're forced to do this. But we still have to do it.
> Previously, American stuff was just better and protectionism wasn't required
Most profits from social media globally is still US businesses (Meta, Google, Snap, etc).
> We're too weak to just beat them so we're forced to do this. But we still have to do it.
Completely agree, but...
Protectionism isn't always just to help local business succeed in the market place - sometimes it's strategic to ensure local skill exists (eg aerospace companies and nat'l defense), or some other similar localized outcome (eg. job creation, pride, etc). I think foreign companies controlling popular media distribution through an opaque and un-auditable algorithm is a propaganda and manipulation liability, so intervention is good. (obviously propaganda is still possible, just more localized).
India banned TikTok (without the option to divest) and everything was fine. And they didn't limit the ban to TikTok:
"TikTok wasn’t a one-off case. Today, India has banned over 500 Chinese apps to date." [1]
If ByteDance won't sell, let them shutdown. It is truly baffling to me that anyone would defend a company's right to operate freely in the U.S. when it is controlled by a brutal autocracy that is also an emerging adversary.
In India users that had it installed could continue to use it. And downloading it in India is trivial. On iPhone it's as simple as changing your region, on Android you just need to install the APK (installer) - which TikTok makes conveniently available on their website. I learned this from a quick search of 'how to install TikTok in India' which is apparently quite the common search in India. [1] I tried to dig up some data on how many Indian TikTok users there are. Probably unsurprisingly, that's not available. It seems fairly safe to say it's going to be quite a hefty number though!
So it was a toothless ban. By contrast, US wanted to have their cake and eat it too - keep TikTok and gain complete control over it. And while I know basically nothing about Indian law I'm fairly certain they have a much better legal argument in the US as well. So I don't think the situations have much in common.
Doesn’t China also demand complete control of foreign apps in their country? Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that the CCP demands specific changes to or outright removal of apps all the time.
In general, yes. This [1] is the first paragraph of the first article of their constitution: "The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People’s Republic of China. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited."
They are a self described democratic dictatorship with a system that openly and voluntarily chooses to sacrifice individual liberty and freedom for what they see as the collective good. That is their right as a sovereign power, but it is not a system I would like to live under. And any movement in this sort of direction is something that I think should be actively opposed.
It's a bit different with China. China has a mandated one party system, but as for individuals they do have normal and fair elections that I think even the US could learn something from. Basically at the smallest segment of society you have groups of something like 2000 people who have a local elected representative who has significant power to actually get things done. Those representatives then elect representatives at a higher tier, and so on up until you have the Politburo Standing Committee electing the President/Secretary of the CCP.
I think this system is pretty nice in lots of ways because it lets local representatives focus on local things, while high level representatives can focus on broad national interests. It also means peoples votes are always extremely important and you're going to be quite 'close' (literally and figuratively) to your representative. Of course the obvious downside is that in China you don't even get to directly vote for the President, but on the other hand - that is similar to many parliamentary systems used throughout Europe. Anyhow, it's an interesting system! Our first past the post district based system is completely broken and dysfunctional, but the people most benefited from it are the only ones who could fix it, so it's not going anywhere anytime soon. But it's fun to at least consider alternatives!
The funny part is that they give you something like 31 names and tell you to pick 30 of them that you want to be elected (so one person gets left out). Early in his career, Xi Jinping actually lost his only direct election this way (they ignored the results and gave him the post anyways). Even at the lowest level, there are definitely never any one on one elections where two people can campaign for the same office, the system doesn't allow for that.
> This [1] is the first paragraph of the first article of their constitution: "The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.
Technically, freedom of speech, religion, press is guaranteed in the Chinese constitution. But China is not a rule of law country so these rights are not enforced in any manner beyond how the government sees fit.
The ban just doesn't apply to end users, but also to advertisers and content producers in the USA. That would have some impact, what is the point of distributing your app if you can't make any money on it.
> By contrast, US wanted to have their cake and eat it too - keep TikTok and gain complete control over it.
The law just specifies that it can't be owned by Chinese. A german company could buy it instead.
> And while I know basically nothing about Indian law I'm fairly certain they have a much better legal argument in the US as well.
That is making a lot of assumptions (I don't why they banned it, but I'm sure their reason must be better than the USA's...because they are India and the USA is worse?).
When I disagree with a "TikTok ban", I'm defending my right to install what I want on my phone/computer/etc. I don't even use TikTok, but I think this sets a shitty precedent.
If the problem with TikTok is data collection, we should legislate bounds on all data collection and make everyone safer. If the problem with TikTok is addictive algorithmic feeds, we should legislate limits on those for all platforms and probably improve everyone's life.
think it sets a shitty precedent that anyone from any country and distribute whatever weird product they want to and as long as people want it. if it isnt addressed.
maybe i would think differently if it wasnt banned everywhere else. and china didnt ban every western tech company.
isis recruitment apps, wholesale fent stright from china apps. whatever its my right! going against something blindly just because you want the freedom to do it whether or not you will is odd no? shouldnt you use context.
Although information is in its name, it gets its full meaning from its suffix.
MISinformation is the missing of information or the mis-leading of an audience by spinning purposefully false rhetoric and delivering arguments for a false narrativvve.
It is very closely related to propaganda, but with a different aim. The aim here is not to have someone look good but to destabelize and subvert.
So although it is containing information in its name, neither it nor propaganda can be labeled information.
Who would want to consume lies freely anyways?
Also, nice addendum of the first amendment btw., the right of US citizens to express their opinions is not being curtailed here. It is just a medium that is under scrutiny and, I might add, for a very very good reason.
I'm not really spinning anything. This is likely the defense TikTok will be using in court. The 1st amendment covers the right to receive information, and it's funny you bring up propaganda because it has even been ruled it covers the right to receive foreign propaganda:
There should be some kind of reciprocity though. If Idaho didn’t allow drivers holding California drivers license to drive in Idaho, I’m sure California will swiftly ban drivers with Idaho licenses in California as well.
If U.S. companies can’t operate in China PR, China PR companies should not have any expectation of unfettered access to U.S. markets.
Also, corporations are NOT people, no matter what SCOTUS says.
The diabolical take is the Republicans moved for this to make TikTok deeply interested in the reelection of Trump. Yes, Trump tried to ban it in 2020 but since then he turned around, if for no other reason than Biden doing it.
It's about reciprocity. CCP does not allow foreign apps and services unfettered access to the Chinese marketplace.
The measures that we have to take to operate and deliver our services in China is insanely difficult resulting in a diluted experience for our customers.
Until and unless China learns to play nice in the global arena, they should likewise be forcibly shut out in terms of access to foreign markets for their products and services.
As a father of two US teens who use TikTok quite a lot, neither of them could give two shits if TikTok was shut down. Snapchat? Now that's a completely different story. TikTok is a boredom filler, Snapchat is a teen communications essential.
74 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadFrom their point of view, the right strategic move is to shut it down. Even if every other country bans the app it doesn't impact them much. Also they hate doing things that make then look weak.
If they sell, they lose their influence. If they shut down, same thing.
This makes for a pithy statement, but is it actually true? Obviously the Chinese government has a lot of influence on Chinese companies, but do they actually dictate strategic direction like this?
> Any medium/large company in China has a government representative embedded in the exec team.
These two aren't the same thing. Obviously if you go directly against the Chinese government you're liable to disappear for a while, like Jack Ma. I just don't think the Chinese government gives that much of a shit about a social media company. Despite all the hysteria about TikTok being uniquely corrosive to society you can see most of the same content and trends on homegrown competitors like Instagram.
Most recent attempt I can think of bucking that trend is Ant group and Jack Ma, who presumably still is in a room somewhere and not a dark hole in the ground.
I also think if they pull out of the US, it's not improbable for the EU to also push TikTok to make changes.
(At the same time, it doesn't seem like China really cares for its tech industry, given how many times they've sabotaged it. It is possible they don't care about what happens with TikTok.)
Do you sell/license the software? Do you charge this new company for API access to the 'old' services?
I've had a really hard time trying to imagine how this could play out in fair agreement. I think the only real option is to exit the market.
So they wouldn’t be selling the US subsidiary, they’d be selling the entire golden goose.
Is it? Wikipedia seems to disagree:
> ByteDance Ltd. is a Chinese internet technology company headquartered in Haidian, Beijing and incorporated in the Cayman Islands.
The only mention of Singapore is in reference to launching a music service there.
Do you have information you can reference that isn't available in the Wikipedia article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance
RIP Vine
A person with a phone could go viral and reach thousands if not millions in a day.
Today, Tiktok has largely throttled the viral nature of their algorithm. You have spend money on paid advertising if you want to reach millions of people. Yes, there are still videos that get millions of views, but it is hit or miss now.
When an innovative foreign company comes in that Facebook/Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon/etc can't buy, the government ends up killing it.
Optimistically, this will create an opportunity for a new business to come in and fill the void left by TikTok's departure. Realistically, that's going to all get gobbled up by a big tech company in the end.
If they don't sell it's a really bad look for them.
I have to agree. There's too much money on the table to not sell.
It would be on the buyer to prove / challenge it’s not the same algorithm and that would be almost impossible to prove
Who knows what TikTok is even worth without its highly addictive engine behind it
https://gimletmedia.com/amp/shows/reply-all/z3h78d6
Maybe in another four years when they're old enough to vote.
Can't be helped. Everything must play out this way. We're too weak to just beat them so we're forced to do this. But we still have to do it.
Most profits from social media globally is still US businesses (Meta, Google, Snap, etc).
> We're too weak to just beat them so we're forced to do this. But we still have to do it.
Completely agree, but...
Protectionism isn't always just to help local business succeed in the market place - sometimes it's strategic to ensure local skill exists (eg aerospace companies and nat'l defense), or some other similar localized outcome (eg. job creation, pride, etc). I think foreign companies controlling popular media distribution through an opaque and un-auditable algorithm is a propaganda and manipulation liability, so intervention is good. (obviously propaganda is still possible, just more localized).
"TikTok wasn’t a one-off case. Today, India has banned over 500 Chinese apps to date." [1]
If ByteDance won't sell, let them shutdown. It is truly baffling to me that anyone would defend a company's right to operate freely in the U.S. when it is controlled by a brutal autocracy that is also an emerging adversary.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/india-tiktok-ban-us-china-9ae5223...
So it was a toothless ban. By contrast, US wanted to have their cake and eat it too - keep TikTok and gain complete control over it. And while I know basically nothing about Indian law I'm fairly certain they have a much better legal argument in the US as well. So I don't think the situations have much in common.
[1] - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=IN&q=H...
They are a self described democratic dictatorship with a system that openly and voluntarily chooses to sacrifice individual liberty and freedom for what they see as the collective good. That is their right as a sovereign power, but it is not a system I would like to live under. And any movement in this sort of direction is something that I think should be actively opposed.
[1] - http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/node_282...
I think this system is pretty nice in lots of ways because it lets local representatives focus on local things, while high level representatives can focus on broad national interests. It also means peoples votes are always extremely important and you're going to be quite 'close' (literally and figuratively) to your representative. Of course the obvious downside is that in China you don't even get to directly vote for the President, but on the other hand - that is similar to many parliamentary systems used throughout Europe. Anyhow, it's an interesting system! Our first past the post district based system is completely broken and dysfunctional, but the people most benefited from it are the only ones who could fix it, so it's not going anywhere anytime soon. But it's fun to at least consider alternatives!
Technically, freedom of speech, religion, press is guaranteed in the Chinese constitution. But China is not a rule of law country so these rights are not enforced in any manner beyond how the government sees fit.
The ban just doesn't apply to end users, but also to advertisers and content producers in the USA. That would have some impact, what is the point of distributing your app if you can't make any money on it.
> By contrast, US wanted to have their cake and eat it too - keep TikTok and gain complete control over it.
The law just specifies that it can't be owned by Chinese. A german company could buy it instead.
> And while I know basically nothing about Indian law I'm fairly certain they have a much better legal argument in the US as well.
That is making a lot of assumptions (I don't why they banned it, but I'm sure their reason must be better than the USA's...because they are India and the USA is worse?).
If the problem with TikTok is data collection, we should legislate bounds on all data collection and make everyone safer. If the problem with TikTok is addictive algorithmic feeds, we should legislate limits on those for all platforms and probably improve everyone's life.
maybe i would think differently if it wasnt banned everywhere else. and china didnt ban every western tech company.
isis recruitment apps, wholesale fent stright from china apps. whatever its my right! going against something blindly just because you want the freedom to do it whether or not you will is odd no? shouldnt you use context.
Nice spin playing on the hacker ethos here.
Although information is in its name, it gets its full meaning from its suffix. MISinformation is the missing of information or the mis-leading of an audience by spinning purposefully false rhetoric and delivering arguments for a false narrativvve.
It is very closely related to propaganda, but with a different aim. The aim here is not to have someone look good but to destabelize and subvert.
So although it is containing information in its name, neither it nor propaganda can be labeled information.
Who would want to consume lies freely anyways?
Also, nice addendum of the first amendment btw., the right of US citizens to express their opinions is not being curtailed here. It is just a medium that is under scrutiny and, I might add, for a very very good reason.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General
If U.S. companies can’t operate in China PR, China PR companies should not have any expectation of unfettered access to U.S. markets.
Also, corporations are NOT people, no matter what SCOTUS says.
I do think it's a national security threat, and agree with the ban.
I just wish humans could figure out how to get along better, so that everything didn't have to be so politicized.
The measures that we have to take to operate and deliver our services in China is insanely difficult resulting in a diluted experience for our customers.
Until and unless China learns to play nice in the global arena, they should likewise be forcibly shut out in terms of access to foreign markets for their products and services.