• Womble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    6 months ago

    Isnt that pretty damn suspicious? We’d rather just shut down than sell it as a going concern?

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      No?

      The way you are speaking it’s as if they mean to close down the whole thing. There is a whole rest of the world for them to operate in. Sure losing the US market would be a huge detriment, but the owners still might rather have it everywhere else, than keep it running in the US in someone else’s hands.

      • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        They aren’t being forced to sell their operations in the entire world, just the US. So, doesn’t it make better financial sense, if all legal options to keep control fail, that they sell their US operation to another company, and at least get billions of dollars before exit, than to just lose the market and get not billions?

          • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            They are going to get one when a western tech company copies them to fill the vacuum they left. Their only real advantage is their leg-up with their earlier footing. There is nothing particularly interesting in their software, it’s easy to copy, and someone likely will. If they do not get a copycat, their crowd will move on to some other thing and, being in the same industry, will still be a competitor.

            • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              6 months ago

              They are going to get one when a western tech company copies them to fill the vacuum they left.

              When? Instagram/Facebook Reels are already a blatant copy. And YouTube Shorts is trying.

              • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                6 months ago

                They don’t want to compete with tiktok, they want them gone so they win without trying to make their own service better, which they could do, but they don’t want to change what likely ends up being a more lucrative algorithm for them if they aren’t dealing with competition. You know, American free market economics 🙄

        • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          A thing never mentioned in these debates is that noone in the world is buying tiktok without buying the underlying algorithm, the same algorithm the app runs on worldwide, the algorithm is the special sauce. They are not going to sell the basis for their app just for a single payday in the US market, which after buying it, they could rebrand and then once successful in the US, compete in the global market against tiktok but with the income of the most lucrative app market in the world behind them. It’s an extremely stupid business move.

        • wildcardology@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          But what if the US version becomes a different version than the rest of the world’s? What if the rest of the world wants that version and demands it?

          • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            They have a leg up, they would have to use their early footing to compete. If they go, the vacuum of their loss of presence will open a spot for an american tech company to copy them. Either way, they are going to get competition from an american tech company. Nothing they are doing is esoteric in a way that would make them hard to copy. There really is no secret sauce, so to speak, in the software. If they are doing it to hide something then then it lends credence to the US’s accusations, at least it leaves a grey area for that speculation. This gives the US a big avenue to push that they are right and everyone should be cautious of their media business.

    • CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s a scare tactic. You as a customer won’t care if the business gets a new owner but if they threaten to shut down all the kids they have will start kicking and screaming to make the government dial back the decision.

    • fiercekitten@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yes, but this is not the way. The US needs federal privacy laws that would regulate all these tech companies. Instead, congress shows that they don’t care about the privacy of US Americans; they just don’t trust China.

      Then, in one of the biggest FUs ever to the constitution, they expand the FISA amendment.

  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 months ago

    So everyone here is probably like “please do it” but I do wonder how the general populace would react. Would people actually miss TikTok if it just disappeared?

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Heavy users will definitely complain for the first couple of weeks, then they’ll just move on to the next platform.

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

      What’s the win here? For Facebook and cable news? Because it looks like another example of the American government strong all over the 1st amendment rights of its citizens because they don’t like what they’re taking about

      • ex10n@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        The main win is banning a content recommendation algorithm that is influenced by the CCP. A secondary win is reducing consumption of short form content. A tertiary win is eliminating that God awful narrator voice.

        There’s no valid 1st amendment argument here. This doesn’t ban American voices, that can continue to be shared on alternative platforms, it bans the CCP Government’s propaganda inserting itself in American media consumption.

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

    This just confirms the worst case scenario for me. This might be posturing, but it’s far more likely ByteDance can’t reveal how much command the CCP has over the data.

  • AnAnonymous@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    China should force Apple to sell to stop them of collecting Chinese people information for the US govt.

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

    I mean…if operating in a country meant selling your US business, you’re probably not going to say “oh gods someone please buy us 🙏”, if you want a big payout…

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Well, as someone I watch online pretty much said, this could lead to other countries banning it if they don’t sell (as to whether that actually happens, I can’t say since I’m nowhere near qualified enough to make that call). I have my own reasons for hoping for a ban outside of wanting most short form content being banned because of attention span draining brain rot, but this is definitely shaping up to be an interesting development.