[qppo]

On the one hand, this is probably a good move made for the wrong reasons.

On the other, I feel like if we're going to force a divestment in the name of national security for a social media app, maybe we should have all our social media apps operating domestically abide by strong privacy protections and data isolation policies.

[pm90]

You may want to read up a bit on how lobbying works.

US based companies enjoy 2 benefits when it comes to regulation: 1) “Domestic” factor which makes them immediately above suspicion of wrongdoing by the National Security apparatus and 2) Access to the legal lobbying infrastructure which they use to protect their interests.

The interests of both Domestic firms (who want to neutralize a fast growing threat) and the National Security apparatus align in this case, which is why the parent company seems to have accepted the fact that it would need to sell off its interests in TikTok. Their interests do not align so much when it comes to protecting user data (arguably for certain 3 letter agencies, they align in favor of fewer user privacy measures).

For those that wonder why big technology firms all seem to be based in the US, there isn’t something magical about the US. It is mostly the State assisting domestic firms in neutralizing international competitors.

[qppo]

Not really sure why you need to be condescending, because what you're talking about isn't how lobbying "works" nor is it how business works in the United States.

>“Domestic” factor which makes them immediately above suspicion of wrongdoing by the National Security apparatus

This for example, is not true.

[rswail]

It definitely doesn't make them "above suspicion" but it does change which of the Federal TLAs have jurisdiction for surveillance and investigations.