• Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s going to be to their advantage to claim that they’re shutting down, even if they actually want that $50B buyout. If they say they’re going to sell, they’re going to lose what little leverage they have left. The public that wants TikTok will get TikTok, and the public is going to stop pestering politicians about it.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      The public that wants TikTok will get TikTok, and the public is going to stop pestering politicians about it.

      Has their user base mobilized at all? Maybe it’s just because I don’t use TikTok but I haven’t really heard much from their users about the ban. Which has been kind of unexpected.

      • firadin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        2 months ago

        Apparently TikTok sent out push notifications telling users to call their representatives. Minors were being provided instructions with their representatives’ phone numbers and contact info, but didn’t even know who they were calling and were asking basic questions like “What is Congress?”

        Kind of shows the amount of power TikTok has over American youth.

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          2 months ago

          I love how they demonstrated they aren’t influencing people by sending out a mass message telling people what to do. It doesn’t get any more comical than that.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            2 months ago

            Malign influence. Telling people to participate in democracy isn’t a bad thing.

            • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yes but telling an army of thirteen year olds doing dance videos to call representatives is worthless, if anything it hurts TikToks argument since it proves they’re doing the influencing of Americans that the government wants them not doing

            • someguy3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              You missed the entire point. They declared 1) We are not doing anything of that sort, then: 2) they did exactly things of that sort. It’s like a slap stick comedy show.

        • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 months ago

          And facebook tells its users to vote. Encouraging people to make their voices heard and engage in the democratic process is a good thing.

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’d say absolutely, if Cambridge Analytica wasn’t a thing. I’d honestly rather have people not vote than be motivated to go vote because they think the liberal communists are putting fluoride in water to make frogs gay.

            It’s somehow always the organizations and individuals who are trying to manipulate people that seem to care the most about people’s voices being heard in politics. Churches, social media, daytime TV, that crazy uncle you don’t like to talk to at family gatherings…

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why though? Why would they give up their trade secrets? They have a global market.

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        They could sell the user accounts and content and let another company clip that into their own recommendation algo.

        I’ve been a part of a few tech acquisitions that have worked this way. They keep their secret sauce but hand over the community.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The question is if anyone would buy it without the algorithm and the other stuff worth money. Users by themselves aren’t very useful if everyone leaves after a day.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            The algorithm either isn’t as valuable as they believe or the government’s concern is legitimate and we have a real problem.

          • Jesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            It would come down to price. I’m sure someone would pay for the content, accounts, and brand. But what dollar amount are we talking about when the algo isn’t on the table.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah that’s certainly possible. I just don’t think it will go the way people are thinking.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      When you’re forced to participate in capitalism, your only option is to play the game. I agree, this is mostly just a bluff.

  • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 months ago

    Makes sense from a business point of view. Why sell to create a new competitor with the same technology and an impregnable market base in the USA?

    Better to force US competition to start from scratch.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      For money. Whoever buys it has to pay you for it. Shutting down just means leaving a gaping hole in American social media that some other company will fill and you’ll be in the same position but with less money.

  • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I dislike TikTok but should you really be banning platforms you don’t like?

    Sanction them if they misbehave, yes. Prevent most of the population from communicating using it? Absolutely not.

    Americans have weird priorities when it comes to freedom. The mental gymnastics I’ve been seeing trying to justify a ban of a platform to a massive population of people is nuts.

    No, it isn’t “actually upholding” freedom of speech to ban TikTok.

    • bighatchester@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think most Americans want tiktok banned . Unfortunately the US government just does what ever they want and right now there is too much pro Palestine information on tiktok .

    • rusticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      lol you think “freedom of speech” includes foreign adversary right to harvest American citizen data?

  • XNX@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 months ago

    The amount of people happy about their government deciding to ban websites and apps is terrifying. They dont give a fuck about your privacy they’re just mad they dont control the algorithm. Now they can have people move to instagram reels where its easier to serve the propaganda the oligarchs prefer

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The u.s. still wouldn’t control the algorithm even if bytedance sold because they are not required to sell to a u.s. company. As long as the new company isn’t controlled by the ccp(or probably also russ, n Korea, iran) the u.s. doesn’t care who owns it.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    They’d rather shut it down cause they dont want to sell it and let an American company see how they use and abuse it to gather information and manipulate behaviors.

    • Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      LMAO, apt name. You do know that facebook, a known disinformation company, is american, right?

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yes, and they should be shut down too. though the difference is facebook is a private entity and tiktok is a tool owned and operated by the chinese government.

        You’re point?

      • EurekaStockade@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I don’t recall the previous commenter mentioning anything about Facebook. Making a comment that is anti something doesn’t automatically mean they’re pro something else.

        Step 1: Feel like getting into a comment section argument

        Step 2: Put words in the other guy’s mouth and argue against those

        Step 3: Make yourself look like a bit of a tool

        Is this the best use of your time?

    • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      As if an American company wouldn’t just pick up where they left off… have you seen Meta? The system needs regulation, not a change in ownership to preferred snoopers.

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      They are free to sell to non American companies just fine as long as the new company is not ultimately controlled by the Chinese government.

  • xia@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    This seems to be a pattern. Govts flex over tech companies, techs blackout a country instead of complying, repeat.

  • rusticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Bytedance announces to software developers: “Start your engines!”