[scarab92]

Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it.

There’s always a chance you don’t come back, and there’s likely to be a loss of marketshare for simply being unavailable for a period and forcing users to trial alternatives.

But, TikTok is not purely commercially focused. A majority of the voting stock of ByteDance is held by the Chinese government, who clearly see non-financial strategic value in controlling it.

Otherwise, they likely could have negotiated a spin out the US operation, whereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.

[ta20240528]

> hereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.

Keen to see this opinion when the Chinese government demands the same from Apple.

'cos we're all equal, no?

[kelnos]

The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US), and already bans quite a few foreign companies from operating on the Chinese Internet (again, unlike the US).

I imagine Apple already complies with whatever they need to comply with in order to make the Chinese government happy.

> 'cos we're all equal, no?

No, we absolutely aren't. The Chinese government has ensured for decades now that foreign businesses have only tightly controlled access to the Chinese people while Chinese-owned (i.e., easily controllable by the Chinese government) businesses have advantages not given to outsiders. (And those outsiders need to open up a Chinese subsidiary that is majority-owned by Chinese investors/companies.)

On the other hand, most Western countries have given Chinese companies near-unfettered access to their markets.

If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.

[bilekas]

> If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.

I do t use tiktok and have no skin in the game as an EU resident, but setting a precedent for this kind of behaviour to permit clthe government to simply block anything it wants is basically following in CCPs footsteps, that's certainly not a good thing in my eyes.

[kelnos]

This is not a new precedent. The US government has placed foreign-ownership restrictions on media companies since before the public internet was a thing. The only difference here is that it's targeted at a specific company, but I'm not really up in arms about that, even though I think they definitely could have written the law without naming ByteDance or TikTok specifically.

[themaninthedark]

Not just media companies, the government block a Japanese company from buying US Steel. Not out of antitrust concerns but due to the foreign ownership aspect.

[xp84]

Yup, and that was done against one of our most loyal allies.

[xcrunner529]

Yep, but people don't pay attention to history anymore and their ignorance keeps us repeating it.

[j33zusjuice]

Did they ever?

[xp84]

I feel like takes like these are coming from a place of extreme naivete, or worse, nihilism. Either people don't understand why it's problematic that our most influential social media platform among basically everyone age 0-30 is fully controlled by the CCP, or people really think the CCP wouldn't use its ability to control any Chinese company to aggressively mold US public opinion in concert with their inevitable invasion of the democratic country Taiwan,

or... the nihilistic option:

People know China would engage in information warfare using TikTok in a situation like that, but they foolishly think the CCP is on even moral ground with free democracies so none of this matters, and we've gotta keep the funny musical memes flowing.

For all one's misgivings about the US -- and there are many valid ones! -- before deciding these governments are equal, talk to a Chinese political dissident, if you can find one, since they sometimes disappear.

[mrighele]

After the invasion of Ukraine, the EU blocked a number of outlets for spreading pro-Russian disinformation (RT, Sputnik for example) so this would be nothing new.

[yyyfb]

As an EU resident your govt likely exerts far more control over media (both domestic and foreign owned) than the US

[bilekas]

> As an EU resident your govt likely exerts far more control over media (both domestic and foreign owned) than the US

Wild statement, so lets look at some data.

https://fr.statista.com/statistiques/1337388/classement-pays...

These are a list of the freedom of press in the EU with their corresponding indexes.

Lets compare that to the US : https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states

Index 2024 Score : 66.59

Not looking good for your opinion but lets look at some more that are consumer privacy focused, which was my main point.

https://iapp.org/resources/article/countries-at-a-glance-pri...

IAPP isn't a bad source IMO but hard to evaluate their methods, but lets see.

> Level of understanding about data collection and use

Netherlands : Weak - 14% USA : Weak - 24%

Not great, I could spend time finding more, but the summary is that the EU has regulations that require companies to limit the useage of consumers information and privacy. The EU is consumer privacy focused, wheras the US seems to be Enterprise & Organisation focused, also it's state level enforcements fracture enforcement even further.

Lets look at the US CCPA vs GDPR :

A crucial difference is that GDPR requires individuals to opt-in before businesses can collect data while there is no opt-in condition in CCPA.

That should say it all.

Edit : I forgot to add, outside of Sanctions the EU has no control to simply decide to ban a company when it feels like it.

[RHSeeger]

You start off sounding like you're arguing against the idea that the EU exerts more control over media than the US, but then most of what you said seems to support the fact that they do so.

Am I misreading what your intent?

[mystified5016]

Ah, but you see, pigs are in fact more equal than other animals

[HenryBemis]

Numerous examples of China-says-jump-everyone-says-how-high.

NBA, any company that makes anything within China using slavery, the guy/actor/wrestler (the name escapes me right now) who had to learn Chinese to apologize. Take your pick of "precedent".

1bn customers = a lot of money. A company that will kiss the ring will do the right thing by its shareholders and a nasty thing against humanity. I am 200% sure that Apple has given the keys for all users/phones/servers in China to the gov/CCP and nobody complained.

If North Korea had 1bn potential customers, we would be seeing Kim very differently.

We are cattle. It's all a 1984-ish sham.

Historically China has been so large and 'diverse' (not to be confused with DEI) (like India and Russia). It's not "one chinese person is just like anyone else". There are multiple Republics/States/etc. It takes an emperor to keep together an empire. And that usually requires (plenty of) violence.

Communism is built to make people suffer, remove individuality and requires total obedience and personal reformation to be the 'good citizen'. You and me both are EU citizens. We are all different and we respect/accept each other. In China if you disagree, you disappear. They would very much like to do the same to the rest of the world. And one day they will, just not yet. I hope they implode before they do (like all empires).

(apologies for the grim tone)(I suggest "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order by Ray Dalio": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8)

[throw0101c]

> NBA, any company that makes anything within China using slavery, the guy/actor/wrestler (the name escapes me right now) who had to learn Chinese to apologize. Take your pick of "precedent".

Houston Rockets GM and James Harden:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harden#Politics

* https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/nbas-apo...

* https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27787634/james-harden-ap...

[Thorrez]

John Cena was probably the wrestler HenryBemis was referring to. Although he started learning Chinese a long time ago, not for the purpose of apologizing. A couple years ago he called Taiwan a country, then issued an apology.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/john-cena-very...

[licenede]

Actually what’s scary for Apple, and really for all companies with assets or factories still in China is that recently China prevented Apple from shipping its own equipments out of China to India. China is so fearful of even more unemployments that it is now willing to upset one of its largest employer.

Foxconn stops sending Chinese workers to India iPhone factories In addition, equipment shipments are delayed, potentially disrupting next-generation iPhone production in India.

https://restofworld.org/2025/china-foxconn-factoriesfoxconn-...

You really have to be braindead as a COO if you do not have contingency plan to move stuff out of China this year.

[usr1106]

> unlike the US

The US is not a master piece of freedom. Want to market or own foreign shares? Want to travel to Cuba? Have you gone through the crazy US border control process as a foreigner?

Yes, China is absolutely worse. But the US is not a good example.

[kelnos]

I never claimed the US was perfect, just better. I think using it as an example is fine. No country is perfect by any metric; everything is a matter of comparison over who is better or worse on a particular thing.

> Want to market or own foreign shares?

ADRs work for that, no?

> Want to travel to Cuba? Have you gone through the crazy US border control process as a foreigner?

I agree those things are bad, but they have nothing to do with market access, which is the topic at hand.

[dboreham]

I have a London stock exchange trading account with Schwab. I think I opened it online. The only catch is that I can only deposit or withdraw funds via my US Schwab account.

[PittleyDunkin]

Well if we aren't going to get the actual fruits of capitalism I'm for damn sure going to fight it tooth and nail at home. Shit sucks and I can't think of anyone I trust less than an American capitalist.

[alfiedotwtf]

> The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US)

Is there any reason you’re skipping the past 40+ years of turmoil in the Middle East purely from the US trying to control oil fields? Because Iran would like a word with, and there’s a hell lot of other countries behind them waiting their turn

[mingus88]

Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but the US obviously doesn't have any issue meddling in other country's economies or political systems. The US also obviously allows foreigners to business in the US without many restrictions. Is this the "free market" I keep hearing about? I don't know.

The OP was contrasting this with China, that does not allow foreigners access to their markets. As a regular American, quite honestly, I would like a bit of protectionism from the US, as I recently bought a house and had to compete with cash offers from Chinese banks. It's insane to me that we allow foreigners to buy property here, while our own citizens are being increasingly priced out of our own country.

[alfiedotwtf]

Isn’t that how laissez faire capitalism works - the person with the higher bid gets the sale, not based on central planned rules of which country the current administration is beefing with that day?

[tailsdog]

I'm pretty sure Meta apps, at least Facebook, are banned in China still. Apple complies with the Chinese government and removes banned apps otherwise it can not operate there. I think even Tiktok itself is banned in China, there is a special version just for the Chinese market so their consumers can not see global content.

[tw1984]

There is no such ban. Microsoft operates tons of services in China. Internet companies just need to host all Chinese in China using an approved provider. This is the exact same requirement extended to Tiktok, for ages US tiktok data is stored in Oracle cloud with full audit access by appointed American firms.

[yyyfb]

Parent talks about Meta, you mention Microsoft. They are not in the same business. Meta is in the social networking domain, which the communist party in China has treated for years as a matter of national security. The "color revolutions" and the "Arab Spring" gave them good reason to believe that online social networks were a driver of societal change too powerful not to control. And they control it very very tightly.

[tw1984]

> Parent talks about Meta, you mention Microsoft. Meta is in the social networking domain

Microsoft operated its own popular social network in China, called MSN Messenger. Tens of millions Chinese users were on that platform for like a decade until the release of mobile based WeChat.

> which the communist party in China has treated for years as a matter of national security

It is a matter of national security, we all saw what happened on twitter shortly before the 6th Jan 2021 attack.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-5-2...

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-6-2...

That is the exact reason why everyone agreed that TikTok must host all US data and its deployed recommendation algorithm code in the US with 3rd party audit access by an appointed US entity.

The only question here is why should Meta and Google be exempted from the exact same rules if they want to operate their services in China.

[FuriouslyAdrift]

MSN Messenger in China was run by MSN China, a separate company run by Chinese residents (as required by Chinese law). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_China

They were defeated by the QQ app and shut down in 2014.

https://technode.com/2014/08/29/microsoft-messenger-shut-dow...

[mitrevf]

Im pretty sure there is no ban per se. They just say: "either put your servers in our jurisdiction or gtfo of here", to which Meta and co. voluntarily decide to not enter the market. CCP still advertises as open to foreign companies though

[immibis]

So does Europe btw and they comply with that.

[raincole]

Chinese government demands a lot from US companies. Google left for a reason.

Apple is quite a special case since iPhone ecosystem creates many jobs in China. If Apple managed to move jobs to India (or wherever cheap labor is), Chinese government will stop being nice to them.

And even then, right now in China, iCloud service is run by Guizhou cloud, not Apple.

[JetSpiegel]

> Chinese government demands a lot from US companies. Google left for a reason.

Yeah, and that reason was incompetence, it's not for lack of trying.

[bsder]

1) China already exerts massive control over all of their social medias via social credit censoring.

2) China absolutely did ban most external social media and forces those that remain to hold data locally.

3) China still has the Great Firewall that everybody forgets about.

4) "He does it too" is the argument a two year old uses and should be accorded the same level of respect.

[bhhaskin]

They already do and it has been that way since "opening" up their markets.

[Angostura]

If I recall correctly, Apple isn’t allowed to run iCloud services in China, they are run and controlled by a local company

[throw0101c]

> Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it.

When you are owned/controlled by an authoritative government you have the responsibility to not get disappeared. Just ask Jack Ma.

[onethought]

Which specific owner is the Chinese government?

[kelseydh]

Can you imagine any other country making this demand and it being taken seriously? It is negotiation by means of extortion. Why are American tech companies entitled to the profits of an internationally used app?

[scarab92]

You can’t claim this is unfair to China, when China requires foreign companies enter into joint ventures which give the Chinese partner majority voting share.

The US is simply reciprocating.

[kelseydh]

I don't think it's unfair to China, I think it's unfair to European countries, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the world that uses TikTok who are watching the U.S. demand it is entitled to run and control TikTok.

This would be like the U.S. forcing Spotify's Swedish headquarters to accept U.S. ownership.

[timhowwan]

Then Europe should grows some balls and ban TikTok. China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary, aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe. And trying to destroy Europe’s car industry via state subsidized EVs

India literally banned TikTok overnight when China killed Indian soldiers in 2020

[kelseydh]

Every state to a different degree subsidizes its automobile industry.

Living in Australia now with access to Chinese EV's is eyeopening. It's great for the consumer. To the extent you accept EV's as a solution for reducing GHG's, the cheaper prices are making it easier to end our reliance on oil. Americans don't realize what they are missing out on.

Better than Tesla-quality vehicles for half the price.

[briandear]

Why exactly are they half the price? What are the externalities of Chinese EV manufacturing. They may be half the price, but I doubt they are half the cost.

[Ray20]

> China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary

TikTok ban is not about vengeance on China, it's about violations of own citizens' freedoms.

> aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe

Russia right now is weaker and has the least potential to conquer anything than literally ever before.

[saagarjha]

India still depends on Chinese imports and technology, regardless of how it feels about the country. The TikTok thing was an easy political stunt.

[Teever]

If banning Tik Tok is an easy political stunt then why has this spawned a couple several thousand comment posts in the last 48 hours alone?

[courseofaction]

You're really not going to enjoy history class when it comes to American empire

[kelnos]

I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining dominant than ceding that position of power to China, regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over time.

And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would be useful to ask them why they think a country like China (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their interests than the US, even with someone like Trump in power.

[tsimionescu]

Since we all live in democratic regimes, maybe, just maybe, the will of the people should matter here at least a little bit? Banning TikTok is a deeply unpopular idea, across all party lines. It's only popular among the anti-democratic elites, from Trump (who first got this ball rolling), to Biden, to European leaders playing their "high-level" games.

[creato]

This is simply false, at least in the US. A small majority favor banning it. It's not huge, but it's not a "deeply unpopular idea".

[1659447091]

It does not say they have to sell to the US. Only divest as to no longer be considered controlled by a `foreign adversary` of the United States.[0] The bill also gives this power to future administrations.

It was literally called Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Not, All your app are belong to us.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...

[johnny22]

Does the law said it has to be sold to a US entity? I think it just can't be run by "adversary"

[mjevans]

More fair would have been a restriction based on some framework like...

+ Public forum or utility

+ Userbase greater than 1% of the adult population

= Majority Ownership of corporate division and management, plus regulatory oversight, must be held within country OR a security partnered country (the easiest criteria for that might be they have an obligation to fight along side 'our' troops in some way).

That way it isn't specific about any given platform or company, and it allows anyone trusted as an ally to comprise the ownership or legal jurisdiction.

[HWR_14]

That's almost exactly how the law was written. Only the userbase was specified in absolute numbers (1 million MAU).

[josephcsible]

But if the EU or Canada or Australia bought it, that would fulfill the terms of the law.

[yyyfb]

EU countries are asleep at the wheel on matters of national security and sovereignty. Spotify is not a matter of national security. TikTok, and social networking in general, has been one for some time now. Misinformation, conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies to overthrow govt, etc have all found renewed vigor thanks to social networks.

US on the other hand now has its social media controlled by oligarchs, not much better maybe.

[alfiedotwtf]

If that’s your position, then you would be fine if EU countries were to pull out all US telco infrastructure because of their previous abuses towards European citizens?

[JumpCrisscross]

> would be fine if EU countries were to pull out all US telco infrastructure because of their previous abuses towards European citizens?

If I were the EU, I would. We hacked Merkel.

[yyyfb]

I'd be mindful that having a NATO partner be able to spy is maybe better than having Huawei spy if you have to choose, but yes, I think it's a risk that EU countries should be aware of and probably are more aware of than with social networks.

[linkregister]

What is your opinion on India's ban of TikTok a few years ago?

[tgma]

You do realize many US companies are not practically allowed to operate in some European jurisdictions? Uber and Amazon come to mind.

[wqaatwt]

That has nothing to with them being US companies. Or are there any jurisdictions where Bolt/(other local company) is allowed to freely operate but Uber is banned?

[norman784]

Aren’t they for a different reason, like workers law protection?

[tgma]

Those are just examples. Whatever the reason for each, sovereign jurisdictions don't allow free access to their resources/markets just out of spite. That includes Europe.

[blackeyeblitzar]

They’re not. Why are you making that assumption? The US is saying that in order to access the US market they have to divest. They’re free to sell at a fair market price - including to European buyers. They can also choose not to and leave the US market and keep operating elsewhere. They can also just sell the US business and keep everything else the way it is.

[wqaatwt]

To be fair being legally mandated to sell significantly reduces that “free market price”. Technically it’s certainly not “free” anymore..

[Pyxl101]

Well, that's pretty much how China behaves with respect to foreign companies operating in China. They all need to be joint partnerships with owners in China.

[kelseydh]

The world is more than just China and the United States. That was the point of my original comment. The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world. No other country could get away with demanding this.

[scarab92]

> The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world.

This isn’t correct. The US law only applies to the services provided within the US.

ByteDance could spin out the US userbase while retaining the rest of the userbase. Many US companies already have to do exactly this for their Chinese userbase. Spin it off to a JV with a Chinese partner.

I’m not aware of anyone doing this, but you could even have a content syndication model whereby the global TikTok and the US TikTok share a common pool of content and username reservations so that both services appear global to their users, but with separate companies controlling distribution of their own apps and the recommendation model used to serve content.

[kelnos]

That's false. The US law requires TikTok to be sold to a non-adversary. A US company could buy it, or some German or Spanish company, and either would fulfill the requirements to avoid a ban in the US.

> No other country could get away with demanding this.

TikTok is already banned in India. Brasil banned Twitter for a while until they caved to Brasil's demands.

[linkregister]

India banned TikTok a few years ago. Brazil banned X until it agreed to take down posts in violation of Brazilian law. The European Union fines US-based tech companies frequently.

"Entitlement" in the context of nations is irrelevant. Nations exercise power in accordance with their interests.

[saagarjha]

The latter two, in theory, apply to local companies too. The TikTok bans specifically apply to “foreign adversaries”.

[lupire]

Domestic adversaries don't own any companies, for obvious reasons.

[josephcsible]

> The United States here feels entitled to own and run

It doesn't have to be the United States. It just has to be anyone other than Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia.

[wqaatwt]

Well.. SAP could buy it. Or some other European tech company that could afford it..

[fc417fc802]

> The world is more than just China and the United States.

But this particular situation is not. A Chinese controlled company that operates in the US. If you want access to $CC market you are subject to $CC's rules. Other countries do exactly the same thing (aside from China, GDPR comes to mind) so it's unclear what the basis for your complaint is here.

[wqaatwt]

Surely this is sarcasm?

Yes absolutely. China.

You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there.

And why do you think Google and Facebook don’t even offer their services there?

[55555]

> You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there.

I'm not sure how generally you meant to speak, but this is no longer true as a general claim.

"As of November 1, 2024, China has removed all restrictions on foreign investment in the manufacturing sector, allowing foreign investors, including Americans, to own up to 100% equity in Chinese manufacturing enterprises."

[wqaatwt]

True. I missed that. Operating an online social network has nothing to do with manufacturing though.

And investments into various telecommunications related areas are still restricted or outright banned. So foreign founded/owned TV stations like Fox News could never exist in China (for better or for worse).

[olalonde]

What's your source on that? Apple, Microsoft, Tesla and Amazon all operate in China and I don't believe they had to give up 50% of their local subsidiary. Google withdrew from China because it didn't want to comply with local laws (e.g. censorship).

[wqaatwt]

They changed it last year. Prior to that you generally could only have a 50% stake manufacturing companies (obviously doesn’t apply to Apple cause they never did any).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_list_of_foreign_inv...

Passenger cars were removed in 2021.

However:

> .. (ii) news agencies, (iii) editing, publishing and production of books, newspapers, periodicals, audio-visual products and electronic publications, (iv) all levels of broadcasting stations, television stations, radio and television channel and frequency, radio and television transmission networks and the engagement in the video on demand business of radio and TV, (v) radio and television program production and operation as well as (vi) film production companies, distribution companies, cinema companies and the introduction of films are still prohibited.

So good-luck to any Australians and Brits who want to operate Fox news style networks in China.

There are other telecommunications related areas which are restricted and not prohibited.

Not sure where would TikTok fall into exactly but it’s probably bot manufacturing.

[bluesnews]

They aren't demanding a sale. They are just saying they can't operate in the country if they don't sell.

They have a choice to leave the country or follow the rules.

[Timber-6539]

Let us cannibalize your app because it's so successful at doing X that we can't compete with you. It's a bizarre ultimatum for the owners of the app.

[wqaatwt]

Seems like the policies used by the Chinese government for decade are becoming more internationally popular (for better or for worse..).

I can’t really feel bad about when it’s the same deal they offer Western companies. Well.. to be fair Google or FB couldn’t even get anywhere close to where TikTok is.

[xcrunner529]

Where you launch in a place where the government actually controls your company, well, that's a decision you made.

[Roark66]

Because it deals with an actual enemy pumping propaganda into your country's citizen's ears. It's a legitimate threat to national security. And no, not just the US does this. (I assume you mean free countries, not dictatorship like China, Russia or North Korea that ban everything they don't like).

Europe banned Russian propaganda outlet RT a couple of years ago, on security grounds. It's just that US prefers the soft-soft approach. Don't ban them, let them "divest". No. It doesn't work. It should be banned end of story. I guarantee a genuine competitor from the US or an allied country would make an alternative quite soon. Would be so addictive and equally brain rotting? Probably not, so people who enjoyed it before would complain. Fine, let them go join Douyin or other Chinese platform and see for themselves how "freedom of speech"looks like in China.

As for anyone who might come and say "they're not doing anything wrong". They are and you're naive for not seeing it. Every company in China is an arm of the state. As an example see how Bytedance released an ebook reader in the US with an AI assistant that tells you things like "nothing happened in 1989 on Tiananmen square", there is no genocide in Xinjiang, it is inappropriate to question and critique the Chinese communist party, China never attacked anyone,ever but it's perfectly fine to criticise every other single country on earth and it is ready to give you a litany of misdeeds any other country on earth ever did. Except China. Do you think a company like that owning what's essentially a monopoly on news for the young people is good? No it is not, and any sane politician would ban it long time ago. The fact Trump did this move worries me for his other decisions in future .

[rsingel]

Fox News, Twitter and Meta are far worse influences on American society than TikTok.

And every big US platform is just a big siphon for the NSA when it comes to non U.S. persons.

The stupidity and hypocrisy of this ban and unban is hilarious.

It's the tech policy analog of the Iraq War (on the level of stupidity, loss of standing, inevitable consequences etc).

Not saying this ban is equivalent to a decision that killed 1M+ people, lead to ISIS, and created the migrant crisis and more

[mcosta]

> The stupidity and hypocrisy of this ban and unban is hilarious.

Your adversary does not care about morals, but will leverage yours in his favour.