• BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.todayEnglish
        0·
        5 months ago

        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.

  • Buttons@programming.devEnglish
    0·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      01·
      5 months ago

      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).

  • Adanisi@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    I dislike TikTok but should you really be banning platforms you don’t like?

    Sanction them if they misbehave, yes. Prevent most of the population from communicating using it? Absolutely not.

    Americans have weird priorities when it comes to freedom. The mental gymnastics I’ve been seeing trying to justify a ban of a platform to a massive population of people is nuts.

    No, it isn’t “actually upholding” freedom of speech to ban TikTok.

  • kirklennon@kbin.social
    0·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    So be it. The vaccuum it will leave will get filled by another platform.

    • XNX@slrpnk.netEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      The whole point of this bill is for mark zuckerberg’s lobbying money to finally get people to use Reels