China Says It Won't Approve TikTok Sale, Calls It 'Extortion' (techcrunch.com) 174
The September 20 deadline for a purported TikTok sale has already passed, but the parties involved have yet to settle terms on the deal. ByteDance and TikTok's bidders Oracle and Walmart presented conflicting messages on the future ownership of the app, confusing investors and users. Meanwhile, Beijing's discontent with the TikTok sale is increasingly obvious. From a report: China has no reason to approve the "dirty" and "unfair" deal that allows Oracle and Walmart to effectively take over TikTok based on "bullying and extortion," slammed an editorial published Wednesday in China Daily, an official English-language newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party. The editorial argued that TikTok's success -- a projected revenue of about a billion dollars by the end of 2020 -- "has apparently made Washington feel uneasy" and prompted the U.S. to use "national security as the pretext to ban the short video sharing app." The official message might stir mixed feelings within ByteDance, which has along the way tried to prove its disassociation from the Chinese authority, a precondition for the companies' products to operate freely in Western countries.
Probably because it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Le mot juste if there ever was.
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:5, Informative)
Problem is, by this logic all Chinese corporate events are extortion by Chinese, as they require majority ownership by Chinese in any company that operates in China.
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say you're right. Does that give us justification to stoop to their level?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Does that give us justification to stoop to their level?
Yes.
If someone's punching you in the face, you can politely ask them to stop. You can ask them a second time, and a third. At some point you need to "stoop to their level" and punch back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if someone's punching you in the face, the reason you can't walk away is because...?
Re: (Score:2)
And if someone's punching you in the face, the reason you can't walk away is because...?
is because they keep following you and punching you in the face. we have tried the walk away bit..It didn't work they keep following and punching
Re: (Score:2)
So when someone punches you in the face, is trying to walk away a third option or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Simulations indicate that you should do it every third time on average to achieve optimal behaviour in a group.
Based on that you should behave like this: 2 of 3 punches should be ignored, 1 of 3 punches should be returned back ... on average.
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone's punching you in the face, you can politely ask them to stop.
You can also call police and let the law deal with the assailant. Your recipe of "hitting back" usually leads to domestic violence ending up with someone being dead or gravely injured.
This is what is happening right now with the US. I remember reading in 80-s era books about how the US is governed by law, and not whims of a (socialistic) dictator. The US had real moral authority. Well, not anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
You can also call police and let the law deal with the assailant.
Alas, that only works when the assailant is stupid. Preferably way more stupid than the police.
I learned very early in High School that I should be VERY careful what trust I put in authority figures. Not all bullies are suffering from cognitive disorders and low self-esteem.
Re: (Score:3)
... the US is governed by law, and not whims of a (socialistic) dictator.
I think any sensible analysis of how China is ruled would term it totalitarian, and not socialistic. I do not care if the Chinese rulers call their ruling party "Communist". I am currently reading a Wikipedia article on Vladimir Lenin. Rather depressing reading, I have to say.
I am not entirely sure what socialism actually means. Being nice to the workers? Who are these workers, anyway? My boss works, so therefore he is a worker. He has got pots of money, and runs a nice swish Tesla. But he is actually an in
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say you're right. Does that give us justification to stoop to their level?
Actually it does, when you understand their level clearly. All business transactions take place in a societal and state created cocoon. If you sign a contract then, in a normal situation in a "normal" country you have the expectation that the other side will follow that. If they fail to then you can go to courts and expect the state to intervene to ensure your private contract is enforced fairly.
The specific level that China stoops to is that the needs of the state are allowed to override those legal protections. If your company produces something in China that China decides is strategic then their companies will be allowed to break Chinese law and copy your system [bbc.com] eventually becoming a major competitor on the back of that breach of law. If China decides, your employees may be arrested and used as bargaining chips [bbc.com] to protect the employees of strategic Chinese companies that are under investigation for breaking the law.
This means that a Chinese company is not just a company. It is in part integrated with a criminal Oligarchy. In order for there to be a "level playing field" which allows non Chinese businesses to work with Chinese businesses in an acceptable way, there needs to be very close scrutiny
Now, you might argue that the US patriot act represents a similar breach of the duties of the rule of law. You might argue that Trump is choosing to enforce these laws in a very strange way, missing important companies (Zoom? / Ali Baba / all the IP camera manufacturers etc.) whilst picking on a company that just happens to have been used by young people to offend him. You might argue that Trump should consider enforcing such rules against companies working with Russia which has actually been caught attacking US elections recently. All these could be valid argument, but not the argument that he should never interfere with Chinese companies ownership and deployment in the USA. Not as long as Chinese companies are part of a system which is inherently law breaking.
Re: Probably because it is... (Score:4, Informative)
Point of order it isn't a criminal oligarchy if it is agreed to by the people. It is a government oligarchy. China is soverign and can run it's population and laws how it wants to.
North korea is sovereign.
That limits what outside people can do. The Chinese people see the differences but then those that can see are both watched closer, and controlled tighter.
Trump wants the usa to make a president for life in the Chinese model. You may not think it will happen but people keep thinking they can control him and fail. Every military person he has had has left. They thought they could control him instead they are helping push his madness out.
Re: Probably because it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Point of order it isn't a criminal oligarchy if it is agreed to by the people.
This is not sufficient. There are fundamental rules of human rights, breaching which is illegal no matter what anyone agrees to. Arresting people without due process, as is happening to the Canadian businessmen and as is happening to the Uyghurs is criminal. As is failing to have an effective system of investigation for when your policemen breach the law, but since both China and the US indulge in that we'll leave it aside for the moment.
Trump wants the usa to make a president for life in the Chinese model. You may not think it will happen but people keep thinking they can control him and fail. Every military person he has had has left. They thought they could control him instead they are helping push his madness out.
Then, if you are an American citizen it's really important that a) you understand why people vote for Trump, and why standing up to China is important to them and b) you listen and then c) you find clear ways to explain what he stands for to people that are on the edge and liable to turn against him. I really think he can destroy everything your country stands for, but standing up for the Chinese government is not the hill to die on. Instead focus on why he has allowed a greater proportion of Americans to die of Covid-19 than almost anywhere else. Why were the cases pushed down for a short time as tests were cut but are now going up again [covidtracking.com]. He has failed your contry disastrously and will even more.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese and North Koreans have "agreed" to their forms of government? Whoa.
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump is going way beyond China's level. Trying to destroy Huawei is like China trying to destroy Apple.
Which is why China can't allow this. It would open the door to much worse things.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is going way beyond China's level. Trying to destroy Huawei is like China trying to destroy Apple.
Which is why China can't allow this. It would open the door to much worse things.
Can't disagree. Why do companies like Nortel and Lucent not exist any more? This is entirely coincident with China forcing it's companies into the global telecoms market. I think China understands better than anyone what this battle is about.
Re: (Score:3)
Lucent was sold to the French. It's problems were entirely its own making, nothing to do with China.
Nortel was hacked for decades before Huawei came along and ate their lunch. What screwed them was not so much the competition from more competent companies but their own financial irregularities and mismanagement.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree that they were both broken companies. However, with companies of that size and history, if they mess up like Nortel, the usual thing is to restructure the debt, change the management and reinstate them as working entities still employing people. The reason that wasn't an option is simply that companies like ZTE and Huawei were coming to eat their lunch. Everybody could see that the market needed to lose some competitors and so nobody was willing to invest in reanimating the train wrecks si
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is going way beyond China's level. Trying to destroy Huawei is like China trying to destroy Apple.
Which is why China can't allow this. It would open the door to much worse things.
So perhaps that's not the right way to look at this. Tiktok in the US is dead. Either Bytedance can get something for it (from Oracle), or they get nothing. The AI part is nonsense. We all know it. Vine had the same stuff years ago. And a US competitor will appear about 1 second after FB ensure access to the necessary APIs to someone. This doesn't really open anything up as its already done. Its just how much of their nose they want to take off to spite their face. Just like it was sorta done to Go
Re: (Score:2)
So perhaps that's not the right way to look at this. Tiktok in the US is dead. Either Bytedance can get something for it (from Oracle), or they get nothing. The AI part is nonsense. We all know it. Vine had the same stuff years ago. And a US competitor will appear about 1 second after FB ensure access to the necessary APIs to someone. This doesn't really open anything up as its already done. Its just how much of their nose they want to take off to spite their face. Just like it was sorta done to Google in China (lack of access to a market). So Bytedance can get something for Tiktok or they can get nothing. Which do you think is better for China? Just wondering...
So perhaps that's not the right way to look at this. iPhone in China is dead. Either Apple can get something for it (from Huawei), or they get nothing.
Yeah I don't think China is going to see it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
So Bytedance can get something for Tiktok or they can get nothing. Which do you think is better for China? Just wondering...
The nothing is better.
China needs to set a precedent. Or it will just keep on happening.
Why fork your code and give it to a competitor when you can keep your monopoly?
TikTok is still alive in every other country. How many other countries would switch to a non Chinese version if given the chance? Wouldn't you? Why help set up your strongest competitor? It's MBA next quarter thinking (stupid, short term profit and destroying your company's future).
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, what US is saying waving FUD all over the place, shows no evidence, and using that, forcing the sale. *THAT* is extortion.
There is some confusion here about the status of American platforms in China, so let's review the events that led up to them.
Kai-Fu Lee, who was head of Google China before Google left China in 2010, compared the treatment of Google in China with that of TikTok in the U.S, "When Google exited China, I had already left the company. However, the environment and regulations were very clear:Foreign internet companies that want to enter the Chinese market need to comply with laws and regulations, which are described very clearly (joint venture, ICP certificate, servers in China, content, etc.). Those who are willing to observe these laws can apply to enter. Google entered in just this way.
When Google later felt unwilling to observe these laws, it decided to leave.
The U.S. did not lay out what TikTok would need to do to continue operating, and never gave any evidence whatsoever to back up its accusations about the company. Forcing the company’s sale, giving only 45 days to do so, and charging a middleman’s fee — these things are not only incomparable to Google, but inconceivable".
Re: (Score:2)
>there was a clear set of rules going in to china
I have no idea who "this one user" is, but if you even remotely believe in the quote, I have a bridge on the Moon to sell you. Good price. Consistent rules of ownership.
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:5, Interesting)
China makes it very clear going in that they're going to rip you off. They're going to insist on a joint-venture with a domestic firm. They're going to insist on technology transfers. And they're going to just steal your fucking IP. All of this is made absolutely clear upfront, and Western firms still do it because they only care about the next quarter.
America has put itself out there as a free, capitalist country, so this is an about-face.
Re: (Score:3)
>And they're going to just steal your fucking IP. All of this is made absolutely clear upfront
No amount of postmodern word twisting is going to make this phrase actually function as a sane statement.
Re: (Score:3)
China makes it very clear going in that they're going to rip you off. They're going to insist on a joint-venture with a domestic firm. They're going to insist on technology transfers. And they're going to just steal your fucking IP. All of this is made absolutely clear upfront, and Western firms still do it because they only care about the next quarter.
What I don't get is why China was allowed to become a WTO member with these bullshit practices in place. It is basically extortion and a form of protectionism.
Re: (Score:2)
Because China's growth was a counter to USSR and closely aligned India. There is simple fact here - USA has a system that values making money above everything else starting from selling guns and destabilizing governments and going from there. All decisions follow from that maxim.
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:4, Informative)
That's not true though. There are wholly foreign owned companies in China.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realise that quite a lot of commerce and services in the US is restricted on the same basis, right? Sure, not anywhere near like it is in other countries, but the US isn't exactly innocent in this area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Probably because it is... (Score:3)
Not true, and even when it was, it was a condition of entry to the market for every foreign enterprise, not just punishment for being successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, by this logic all Chinese corporate events are extortion by Chinese, as they require majority ownership by Chinese in any company that operates in China.
Extortion, what extortion, you mean the protection partnerships?
Re: (Score:3)
US law meaningless. Quite clearly the public message, as a foreign corporation of you outcompete American corporations, you will be crushed, all the profit must be American, the labour that can all be foreign but all those profits must end up in the tax haven bank accounts of American corporations, not paying a cent in tax.
It was just a geo-political attack which will see American corporations, ALL American corporations targeted in China in turn. Completely idiotic and pointless, typical of the kind of blu
Re:Probably because it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
China deserves that and worse
And by behaving like them, we've just lent further legitimacy to their actions. If the land of the free does it, how bad can we possibly be?
Guess that’s why they say “an eye for an eye makes the world blind.”
(Also, now I’ve got that Lorax song stuck in my head again...)
Re: (Score:2)
And by behaving like them, we've just lent further legitimacy to their actions.
What do you propose instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
40 years of going high doesn't seemed to have worked. In fact, the opposite of the desired effect has resulted.
Re: (Score:2)
In manufacturing it's just as bad. Try to sell a product made outside of China within China. This is not free trade.
Re: (Score:3)
They have created a very straight set of rules regarding what's allowed and what's not. The US government on the other hand, starts chasing and vilifying Chinese companies with baseless accusations. We all have yet to see a credible proof of "backdoor" in Huawei network equipment.
Let's get to the bottom of it. This whole campaign of very loud public bashing of some Chinese companies is simply part of Trump's "trade war" electoral strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. policy is very clear and transparent. All China need do is make a substantial contribution to either the alleged president's bank account or his re-election campaign.
Re: Probably because it is... (Score:2)
All those companies are allowed in and are in China (not sure about twitter). Some of their products aren't because they refuse to follow Chinese law. They are welcome back, should they decide they're not above the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it sucks when your companies are forced into joint ventures in order to have access to a large market, doesn't it?
Re: Probably because it is... (Score:2)
... common practice for a developing country, iinm.
Perhaps it is time to remove that status.
Anyway, it's not true any more, right? China changes over time, in its own time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Probably because it is... (Score:2)
Re: Probably because it is... (Score:2)
Except that's not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the political concerns, it is extortion. China deserves that and worse, but that doesn't change what it is.
Yeah, exactly. What would Americans say if they effectively tried to nationalize Apple or Google's (they're evil enough) China operations.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't need to live there, or have been there. Just need to believe what the free press in the western world tells us about them. Which I do: the people running China are tyrannical scum. They are using extortion (and worse) all over the world to get their way. That's not even counting the horrors perpetrated on people living in China.
Re: (Score:3)
The so called western "free press" is a joke. It's owned by oligarchs who are completely in cahoots with the ruling class. They sure love reporting about alleged human rights abuses in China but seem to keep rather quite about the torture and terrible injustice done to Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice whataboutism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Going right from the authoritarian playbook. Thing is, much of the fucking ruling class in the Anglosphere is in cahoots with China and if anything, they want to be more like them. No, our free press is not perfect, but it's miles ahead of anything Russia or China put out.
I read plenty about Assange, ( https://www.theguardian.com/me... [theguardian.com] ) and plenty of it is positive towards him and critical of US treatment of him, so I really don't know what the fuck you a
Re: Probably because it is... (Score:2)
Then you're a fool.
Play by the same rules (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If this is how it is going to be, it has to be set in rules (laws). But bashing a random Chinese company and forcing a sell off is utter BS.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2154674/tesla-build-its-gigafactory-shanghai-capacity-produce-500000-cars [scmp.com]
Re: Play by the same rules (Score:2)
Good.
Re: (Score:2)
Does China own 51% of Tesla? What about Tesla's installations in China?
It has been newsworthy that the Tesla Gigafactory 3 is US-owned, since it is the first fully foreign-owned car plant in China. It certainly isn't the norm. Seems to be a sad example (from a US perspective) of China becoming more open to foreign investment while the US does the opposite.
Re: (Score:3)
What if the Chinese response to banning TikTok is to declare Gigafactory 3 to now be 100% Chinese owned? Is there anything Tesla can do about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's time for mutual cold war and we can give up this f'ing charade.
China was always at cold war with the west, the west just wasn't fighting because the globalisst promised them that if they just kept feeding the mercantilist beast that someday China would become an equal partner. Instead they just stole and stole ... and they only got more dead set on expansionism.
Engagement has failed, it was after all just appeasement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Play by the same rules (Score:2)
Of course. China laegely behaves rationally and predictably. This was clearly a win-win and very much in line with China's objectives.
Intelligence Asset Verified (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's all the evidence I need that TikTok is an asset of the CCPs intelligence apparatus.
So explain to us, what exactly what is China gaining in terms of intelligence from the gigantic pile cringe worthy video clips that is TikTok? And please do try to come up with a conspiracy that does not also involve George Soros the 'Deep State' and Jews.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to resort to conspiracy theories - US intelligence organizations have been warning for over a decade that Chinese hardware and software available on the free market is leaking data. That's a concern to our military organizations, as military and other essential personnel can be more easily profiled from the extra data. Common permissions from smart devices could leak locations and associations. In some cases, this had led to people being blackmailed by foreign governments. Location data could expose
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see a credible proof that Huawei equipment has backdoors or calls home to spy on customers.
Re: (Score:2)
So TikTok is hardware? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an idea: you load their code onto your computer and try to figure it out.
What's the matter, too chicken to install their app? Well, guess what: so are the people who think it might be part of their intelligence apparatus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any Android.
Re: (Score:2)
I was asking which phone isn't maintained by an advertising company...
Well you can still buy a Huawei ;)
No Google there.
But I think it kind of defeats the main purpose a little...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, they are just pissed they are losing a very broad and valuable attack vector.
Re: Intelligence Asset Verified (Score:2)
Then you're a fool who has learned nothing.
Well ... (Score:4, Informative)
"has apparently made Washington feel uneasy" and prompted the U.S. to use "national security as the pretext to ban the short video sharing app."
At least has annoyed *someone* in Washington 'cause (apparently) people have made disparaging videos about him and (reportedly) coordinated an effort that tanked attendance at one of his rallies by reserving a LOT of tickets and then not going, both on the app -- or so I've read/heard.
Re: (Score:2)
At least has annoyed *someone* in Washington 'cause (apparently) people have made disparaging videos about him and (reportedly) coordinated an effort that tanked attendance at one of his rallies by reserving a LOT of tickets and then not going, both on the app -- or so I've read/heard.
No.... that can't be true... \sarcasm
The perfect end... (Score:2)
It Only Makes Sense (Score:5, Informative)
1. The only reason for the sale is due to the insistence of a foreign President who might not even be re-elected in several weeks
2. It's not even clear that a U.S. President has the power to enforce such a demand (have the issue taken to court to buy some more time)
3. If it's determined that Trump can block a particular app without official sanctions from Congress, then troll him by changing the name of the app to something like "ClikClok" since the executive order specifically bans an app called TikTok
This deal is also terrible for Americans as well. The whole thing is supposed to be based on "national security" but there are many other apps that were created by Chinese companies or U.S. companies who receive heavy investments from China, so what makes TikTok so special? Is it because it was used to troll Trump at one of his rallies? If so, then this move would ensure that the data of users who do things that he doesn't approve will remain firmly within his reach. Any future stunts using that platform could be investigated by the TLAs since Trump is the executive over all of those agencies. If those agencies decided to obey the Constitution and refuse Trump's demand, then a quick call from Trump to one of his biggest supporters (Larry Ellison) would be all it takes to get that data since it would be hosted using Oracle's resources.
This really is one of the most unusual and chilling moves I've ever seen a U.S. president attempt to make. Trump is attempting a nationwide ban on a couple of apps (WeChat and TikTok) because he claims that they're security risks but he hasn't shown any proof that is the case. Even if you don't think that proof should be required, then I think we could all agree that Chinese hardware is a much greater risk, so why hasn't that been banned?
One of the things that annoys me the most is that if it was a Democrat doing this, the conservative networks would all be proclaiming that liberals were performing a "government takeover of smartphone marketplaces" but somehow this is alright because it's a Republican and the targeted apps are from China. If you're still alright with this, I'll leave you two things to think about:
1. Slippery slope
2. If we do allow this, what apps will be banned once a Democrat occupies the White House?
Re: It Only Makes Sense (Score:2)
I'd guess Trump would say the rally fiasco is the proof. Making the US President look like a fool damages national security. Perhaps he himself should be banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no news breaking recently on that that I can see. That was back in May/June. Also it's UPenn, not PennState. AFAICT it's not established whether any of those funds were directed to the "Penn Biden Center".
It's not extortion (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about disrupting youth political action & organization. A bunch of kids on Tik Tok made a fool of Trump at his first big post COVID rally by ordering thousands of tickets and not going. What got their attention wasn't Trump being made a fool but _how_ he was made a fool.
They did the same thing with Occupy Wall Street and with Nixon's Drug War [youtu.be] before that. Whenever you find young people organizing politically you'll find the GOP there to break it up before they start voting. It's part of a long, broad strategy that has it's roots in the losses they took post Civil Rights movement. The right wing adapted their tactics, the left wing did not.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what got Trump's attention. Extortion is the result of this attention and Trump was unpleasantly surprised that he wouldn't get a cut of the sale.
Re: (Score:2)
I point this out on every Tik Tok thread because it bears repeating [duckduckgo.com] (getting that joke out of the way now).
Wrong bear joke. On a TikTok thread you're supposed to point out that Xi Jinping looks like Winnie-The-Pooh.
They are right. It is . (Score:2, Informative)
For security reasons, America can simply block from tik-tok's IP(s). And yes, we have the ability to do that.
Re: They are right. It is . (Score:2)
Any references for that?
Fine! No deal, no TikTok! (Score:2)
Ban the application and call it done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)