- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
If ByteDance is a normal company they will seek profits and sell for as much as they can.
But if TikTok is a Chinese psyop, they’ll just use any of the many legal tricks we allow to change the “owner” while China still retains control. Companies do this all the time, look at shell companies and such. It’s super easy for China to mask the true owner if they decide to.
This is why we should make broadly applicable regulations instead of picking on one specific company.
If ByteDance is a normal company they will seek profits and sell for as much as they can.
If the sale is forced, the value of the property will be depressed. Why would they take pennies on the dollar to liquidate IP rather than fight it out in court and try to get the provision overturned?
This is why we should make broadly applicable regulations instead of picking on one specific company.
The law is not specific to TikTok. It is any company owned by a subsidiary of an “enemy” state, of which China is listed as such.
And selling the company to a non-Chinese holding company wouldn’t work, because the dispute is over Chinese IP law affecting how ByteDance does business. Move the company overseas and it would no longer be covered by the IP provisions (something the Chinese investors don’t want, because they benefit from the IP provisions).
Makes sense from a business point of view. Why sell to create a new competitor with the same technology and an impregnable market base in the USA?
Better to force US competition to start from scratch.
For money. Whoever buys it has to pay you for it. Shutting down just means leaving a gaping hole in American social media that some other company will fill and you’ll be in the same position but with less money.
Yeah I agree, there really is no incentive for a for-profit company to choose shutting down over selling. Unless they never cared about profit and had ulterior motives from the very beginning.
YouTube/IG are hardly starting from scratch.
But they don’t have the international reach of TikTok.
deleted by creator
should you really be banning platforms you don’t like?
Yes, but only if that platform is Twitter
So be it. The vaccuum it will leave will get filled by another platform.
The whole point of this bill is for mark zuckerberg’s lobbying money to finally get people to use Reels
They didn’t lobby this bill. Google, oracle, did
TikTok’s daily active users in the U.S. is also just about 5% of ByteDance’s DAUs worldwide, said one of the sources.
So much drama in the US over this but it’s apparently merely a money-losing afterthought for its owner.
It’s almost like making money is not the primary purpose of this website 🤔
Or … maybe the US isn’t the only country in the world?
Lmao yeah OK 👍. Name any other country.
It’s going to be to their advantage to claim that they’re shutting down, even if they actually want that $50B buyout. If they say they’re going to sell, they’re going to lose what little leverage they have left. The public that wants TikTok will get TikTok, and the public is going to stop pestering politicians about it.
The public [who] wants TikTok will get TikTok
In my family and peer group, the people who want to use tiktok and the people who could get and use a VPN to access a side-loaded tiktok app, has no intersect group. It’s just a bridge too far for all of them.
I’ll push them onto the fediverse yet.
Worst part about Lemmy being a tech heavy space is that so many users spout shit like “They’re not banning it, just deplatforming it” like yes, dipshit, that’s effectively a ban for something like 99% of people. You think 100,000,000 people are gonna fucking sideload the app? Love this place but it can be a bubble sometimes.
Situations like this are a good opportunity to increase the rate of tech literacy in a broader population or to promote decentralized solutions, but unfortunately that’s a pipe dream.
