[jaxtracks]

I'm confused, are you saying the TikTok ban is detrimental to US-based big tech? Seems like a forced sale is beneficial to them.

I was also under the impression we're also entering a regulatory climate where amount of regulation isn't so much decreasing (TikTok ban for example is heavy handed), but that big tech has much more involvement in forming that regulation, which is useful for moat-building.

I'm not too knowledgeable on these, it's just the general gist I've been picking up so far this year, looking for correction if I got the wrong idea.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

>>>saying the TikTok ban is detrimental to US-based big tech?

Not op, but yes.

>>>Seems like a forced sale is beneficial to them.

Short term. Long term you are establishing a precedent that you can intervene and take away the power of any large tech player. If it can happen to tiktok it can happen to others.

Im not against tikton ban, but im against it in its current form , since its not for the right reason. (China plays unfair with us corps, we should reciprocate our treatment of their own in our borders. The law instead claims some US patriot act natsec prerogative bs)

[kube-system]

What happened to TikTok legally cannot happen to any US-based tech company. The legislation uniquely targets foreign entities.

[pseudalopex]

I thought it was clear they meant other legislation targeting other companies could be passed.

[malcolmgreaves]

The republicans have not been following the laws since they put Trump into the White House 8 years ago. Why do you think something like legality will stop them?

[kube-system]

I'm making the argument in the context of a concern about the TikTok ban. If laws don't matter then the entire conversation is irrelevant.