Comment by maxglute

Comment by maxglute 4 days ago

>Bytedance is not an independent private company

PRC banned exporting Bytedance algo. By that logic, no US companies are independent private companies due to US export controls. And TBH both points are true.

>Grindr

Grindr was foreign company acquired by PRC, and sale was reversed by CFIUS. Selling an acquired foreign company is geo/politically different than having your domestic company nationalized/appropriated by another. Which is quite literally a strike against Chinese people. Even PRC has never forced a US company from divesting US ownership, because that's a retarded tier of "hostility" only US hubris can imagine. And it's particularly retarded tier analysis from Noahpinion who thinks Chinese people won't view divestment requirement a PRC company as hostile against Chinese entrepreners, who are Chinese people.

rwarfield 4 days ago

> PRC banned exporting Bytedance algo. By that logic, no US companies are independent private companies due to US export controls. And TBH both points are true.

Chinese state control over private companies is far more pervasive, and less bound by rule-of-law, than that of the U.S. Export controls are not even the H2O molecule at the tip of the iceberg.

> Even PRC has never forced a US company from divesting US ownership

Bytedance is not being forced to divest; they can leave the market, just like Google and many others had to leave China.

Reply View 5 replies

maxglute 4 days ago

>more pervasive
US spectrum export controls have been every bit as pervasive as PRC ones, pretending muh "rule of law" is a distinction without difference at this point. It's functionally the same.
>forced to divest
If US law is forced divestiture, then Bytedance is "force" to leave, because having US nationalize a PRC company is obviously a nonstarter except for the terminally stupid like noahopinion. Unlike Google + western platforms who "chose" (read: not banned) to leave because they "chose" not to comply with PRC laws that applies to all companies, including domestic PRC ones. The difference is US has no equitable law, i.e. some sort of data privacy law, that enables Bytedance to operate in US... while following the same laws that US companies do, as if Bytedance wasn't already bending backwards following additional requirements that US platforms do not have to follow (i.e. functionally Oracle JV).
Like fine, Bytedance needs to follow US laws, except US laws is designed specifically to prevent PRC companies from operating, vs PRC laws is designed to allow everyone to operate, just said operation is onerous - see retarded reciprocal argument that US companies should operate in PRC without abiding by PRC censorship laws that domestic platforms has to abide by. There's a reason FB and Google had internal programs to re-enter PRC market compliant with PRC laws (before being axed by internal dissent), because it's still feasble for US platforms to operate in PRC while being US (or at least JV) owned. So let's not pretend what US is doing is the same thing - PRC is more rule of law, US rule by law in this comparison. But again, functionally that hardly matters.

Reply View | 4 replies
- rwarfield 4 days ago
  
  > US spectrum export controls have been every bit as pervasive as PRC ones, pretending muh "rule of law" is a distinction without difference at this point. It's functionally the same.
  As I said, export controls are such a minor part of the problem as to hardly be worth mentioning. The pervasive control I'm speaking of is things like the fact that ByteDance (like all large Chinese companies) would have an internal CCP committee with influence over personnel and strategic decisions.
  > having US nationalize a PRC company is obviously a nonstarter except for the terminally stupid like noahopinion
  This is wrong on many levels. No one is talking about nationalizing TikTok (which is not a PRC company) and certainly not ByteDance.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  maxglute 4 days ago
  
  >CCP committee with influence over personnel and strategic decisions
  Party committees as part of 93 company law basically creates dumb shit like organizing staff picnics for companies with more than 3 CCP members, which is basically any reasonably sized company since 1/8 of country are CCP members. It is much more minor than export controls. The "pervasive control" exists in the sense that there is higher level coordination like META having US intelligence on board, or forming partnerships with said agencies. Fixating on minor shit like internal CCP committee is propaganda trying to pretend somehow US companies are less influenced by geo/politics when they are every bit as much. The big stuff is again, distinction without difference.
  > TikTok which is not a PRC company
  This is being obtuse like people pretending TikTok being based in Singapore/incorporated in Caymen somehow seperates it from Bytedance's (quartered in Beijing) PRC roots. I'll grant you DE-nationalizing isn't "technically" the same as nationalizing, but geo/politically it's obviously a none starter just like if Beijing told Boeing they would have to divest from US ownership. PRC would never allow US to normalize that kind of behaviour, and vice versa. DE-nationalizing tiktok, i.e. nationalizing by parties other than PRC is another distinction without difference.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies

zeroonetwothree 4 days ago

Surely the value of the TikTok user base is >$0 even without the algorithm. Why not sell that part of it?

Reply View 1 reply

maxglute 4 days ago

Whose buying? For how much. But maybe for the same reason Meta alleges it doesn't sell user data, because there's 7 billion other potential users who wouldn't look fondly at it. Counter productive as long as there's other routes for growth.

Reply View | 0 replies