71
ByteDance prefers TikTok shutdown in U.S. if legal options fail, Reuters sources say (www.ctvnews.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.ml
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Exactly, this asset is worth nothing to the CPP if sold.

TikTok is worth approximately nothing to the CPC either way. It’s not like the Chinese state is hurting for money. They have a surplus of US dollars that they’re busy unloading, and they have fiat monetary sovereignty of their own currency. The app is banned in China, so nobody there is going to miss it. Who is invested in ByteDance that might care? American private equity: ByteDance’s US investors weigh options as bill to ban TikTok advances

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I think j was talking about spying

    (From today on, I aim to not say the fifthglyph for all days to promote !avoid5@sh.itjust.works)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The national security angle is a farce because ByteDance was already forced to move their service to the US on an American-owned hosting provider, and they have already put people with a history of aligning with “American interests” into executive positions, like CEO Shou Zi Chew and vice president Michael Beckerman, and American oligarchs are invested in it. I think the US “intelligence community” already has everything it needs to monitor and control TikTok.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I never understood what it would help to have the data on a US server. It's not that difficult to access it there from China. I access my server in Germany via SSH from Korea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    What can ByteDance access that China couldn't just buy from Alphabet or Meta or some other tech company?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    China can't buy data from US companies. That's illegal. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Not yet. There was an executive order to ban selling data to "enemies" that would include China but it hasn't been implemented.

    Also I'm highly skeptical it'll work. China can just work through proxies and not buy directly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I feel like the US would ban selling vital data to big enemies, and getting info from ByteDance is free.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The US doesn't ban selling data, though. China can buy whatever it wants just as easily as harvesting it from ByteDance.

    And I'd hardly call running an entire social media enterprise "free". If it's a torjan horse, it's an entirely unnecessary one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    After a ton of alternating search queries, apparently both of these avenues are being used, and Biden announced working on such a ban in late February.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The executive order is specifically targeting data brokerage, a practice that is shockingly unregulated. There is no federal law that oversees the collection of and sale of the most intimate details of our lives. And when data is sold to countries of concern, it can become a national security issue.

    It's good the bare minimum is being implemented.... though it's weird how two months have passed without updates.

    I must point out that this only concerns data being sold to Russia or China, ie, it's just security theater. I would like to see some restrictions on data being sold to anyone, including so-called US allies. Israel, in particular, collects data on American Palestinians who contact family back in Palestine and uses this to feed its AI that generates kill lists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Internet coverage of that topic is surprisingly limited for what seems to be an easily-thought-of national security risk...

    ByteDance's capitalist entrepreneurs run the enterprise for them, and they can extort data out, yes, for free.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Running a company isn't free lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Again, China does not run the company, they just own the leash on the private entrepreneurs who do. That's one of Deng's benefits for implementing capitalism. (mildlyinteresting: the word capitalism isn't capitalized)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    China has a massive stake in the company. It's a huge investment for them. Hardly "free"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    It's a one-time fee that also earns money back compared to the continuous payments to buy from other sources.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Assuming China doesn't have to spend literally any other money, even though countries are constantly investing in infrastructure and security and material to assist the business.

    But also, literally not free. My point stands.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    You won't just stop the maintenance if TikTok didn't exist. It's not like all China cares about is data.

    Your question was "why would China get data from TikTok when they can just buy it from Meta". If China didn't get the data from ByteDance, ByteDance still incurs the maintenance fee. So no, that is not the expense of getting the data.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Uh huh, and do you think Alphabet and Meta don't do that? Do you think if China offered to buy that data they wouldn't be able to get it? Grow up.

    My point is that we should be taking internet privacy seriously, not just going after foreign companies.

    It's not okay when the spies are American. Until I see serious action taken against the worst offenders I'll know this is all theater.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're missing my point that it's not money the CCP is after but influence and power abroad. They already have absolute power at home.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    specter This is silly. It’s an exaggeration to even call it a Chinese company.

    [Singaporean CEO Shou] Chew added that 60% of ByteDance is owned by global institutional investors such as the Carlyle Group, General Atlantic and Susquehanna International Group, while 20% of the firm is owned by Zhang and 20% owned by employees around the world. Three of the company’s five board members are Americans, he said.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    ByteDance's owners include investors outside of China (60%), its founders and Chinese investors (20%), and employees (20%).[35] In 2021, the state-owned China Internet Investment Fund purchased a 1% stake in ByteDance's main Chinese subsidiary, Beijing ByteDance Technology (formerly Beijing Douyin Information Service), as a golden share investment[36][37][38] and seated Wu Shugang, a government official with a background in government propaganda, as one of the subsidiary's board members.[39][40][41]
    —Wikipedia, check article for sources

    In business and finance, a golden share is a nominal share which is able to outvote all other shares in certain specified circumstances

    From the article you linked:

    Is ByteDance Chinese?

    Definitely.

    Does the Chinese government own or control ByteDance or TikTok?

    Chew has emphatically told Congress that ByteDance is not owned or controlled by the Chinese government.

    However, like most other Chinese companies, ByteDance is legally compelled to establish an in-house Communist Party committee composed of employees who are party members.

    Analysts have said the “golden shares” provide a way for the Chinese government to get more directly involved with the day-to-day businesses of tech companies, including in the content they provide to the public.

    Chew has admitted that the “golden share” exists. But he said it was for the purpose of internet licensing for the Chinese business.

    In 2018, China amended its National Intelligence Law, which requires any organization or citizen to support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence work.

    That means ByteDance is legally bound to help with gathering intelligence.

    In 2021, China introduced a new data security law, which applies to data processing activities conducted outside of the country that may “harm the national security or public interests.”

    There is also a cybersecurity law in China, which says the state will take measures to monitor, prevent and handle cybersecurity risks and threats “arising both within and outside the PRC’s territory.”

    These vague and broad laws apply to technology companies and may be used to regulate them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Is ByteDance Chinese?

    Definitely.

    shocked-pikachu

    Whelp if corporate American media says that then it must be true 😆

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Cite a better reasoning than what the article uses to arrive at that conclusion then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think the article speaks for itself. It says ByteDance definitely is a Chinese company and then goes on to explain the ways in which it isn’t, including majority ownership. If the US government has the power to kill the company, one might argue that it’s more an American one than Chinese.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The definition of a golden share is effective control. Tell me how that and the following is going "on to explain the ways in which it isn't".

    ByteDance was founded in 2012 in Beijing by Zhang Yiming and Liang Rubo, who were college roommates at Tianjin’s Nankai University, according to company information and Zhang’s public speeches.

    It has been based in the Chinese capital since then. In 2021, Zhang announced he would step down as CEO of ByteDance and handed the reins to Liang.

    The US government has the power to kill Huawei if they wanted to; it's their territory and they can do whatever the heck they want, of course. That doesn't mean Huawei is US-owned.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The definition of a golden share is effective control.

    That’s not nothing, but still not the be-all and end-all that you seem to want to make it.

    The US government has the power to kill Huawei if they wanted to; it’s their territory and they can do whatever the heck they want, of course. That doesn’t mean Huawei is US-owned.

    Is this a joke? The US government just tried and failed. Huawei reclaims top spot in China’s smartphone sales ranking, its first time back since company was added to US blacklist

    Huawei Technologies climbed back to the No 1 spot of China’s smartphone market in the initial two weeks of this year, according to a report by research firm Counterpoint, putting more pressure on 2023 industry leader Apple and major mainland rivals in the world’s largest handset market.

    This marks the first time Huawei reclaimed the top smartphone sales ranking on the mainland since Washington imposed sanctions on the Shenzhen-based company when it was added to the US trade blacklist in May 2019, which crippled the firm’s once-lucrative handset business, according to the report on Sunday by Counterpoint research analysts Ivan Lam and Zhang Mengmeng.

    That resurgence was jump-started by Huawei’s surprise release last August of its Mate 60 Pro 5G smartphone – powered by its advanced Kirin 9000S processor, which was locally developed in spite of US tech sanctions – as well as the firm’s Android replacement mobile platform HarmonyOS, the report said. It also pointed out that brand loyalty among Chinese consumers greatly contributed to the popularity of Huawei’s new 5G handsets.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    I'm saying that they have the ability to ban any freaking thing in their territory. That Huawei is doing well outside of the US is irrelevant. If Huawei's US division was forced down by the US, that is killing it, and they're still not American.

    That’s not nothing, but still not the be-all and end-all that you seem to want to make it.

    Explain further how it isn't a Chinese company despite its origin and its base of operations. Even if it isn't, all that's relevant is that China can influence TikTok into giving them their data for free today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    China can influence TikTok into giving them their data for free today.

    Perhaps they could, but there’s no evidence that they as yet have. And of what use is your TikTok data to the Chinese state, anyway? Money is no object to them, and they can buy your data from other US companies as well. Anyone can.

    The US government doesn’t care about protecting your data. They care about accessing it themselves and controlling narratives on social media in order to shape public opinion.


    They’re after the fediverse now as well. Atlantic Council: Collective Security In a Federated World (PDF)

    Centralized and decentralized platforms share a common set of threats from motivated malicious users—and require a common set of investments to ensure trustworthy, user-focused outcomes.

    Many discussions about social media governance and trust and safety are focused on a small number of centralized, corporate-owned platforms that currently dominate the social media landscape: Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and a handful of others. The emergence and growth in popularity of federated social media services, like Mastodon and Bluesky, introduces new opportunities, but also significant new risks and complications. This annex offers an assessment of the trust and safety (T&S) capabilities of federated platforms—with a particular focus on their ability to address collective security risks like coordinated manipulation and disinformation.

    Trust and safety my ass. This is about manufacturing consent. They’re failing to control young American’s impression of and reaction to the Gaza genocide that’s being done in their name, so they’re pulling out all the stops now. Not the Onion but the NYT last week: Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe: A surveillance law referred to as Section 702 is needed to protect us from foreign threats.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago*

    For most people, "could" is enough to worry about. Just look at the people flocking whenever their app is bought by an advertising company.

    (As for the NYT opinion, I'll forward this comment: "Waxman worked under Bush as a senior national security advisor. So the administration that believes in torture is advising us that government surveillance is fine and keeps you safe? Not sure I trust the source." My personal opinion is actually ambivalent towards surveillance, privacy, and safety.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent