The US government and US corporate media are trying to convince us that foreign powers are undermining our democracy by putting foreign ideas in our heads through social media. But in reality 1) there is no democracy and 2) our government and corporate media have been putting ideas in our heads our entire lives. What they’re really worried about is losing control of the public discourse.
The first would be to block any financial institution in the US, or that deals with the US, from sending any payments to or from ByteDance's accounts.
They could also freeze any assets currently held by US financial institutions.
Second, if they can get Apple, Microsoft, and Google on board to help do their bidding, they could pull the ByteDance app from the Apple and Google Play app stores.
That includes removing it from any apps where it's already installed. Globally.
They could also request that TikTok is removed from Google and Bing search results.
On top of this, they could do what you suggested, and ask ISPs and mobile carriers to block domains and IP addresses used by ByteDance.
And the US could apply diplomatic pressure on other countries to implement similar financial and ISP-level blocks and bans.
So, potentially, it's also blocked in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and elsewhere.
ByteDance has 270 days (+90 days at president discretion) to divest of TikTok and sell to an entity not affiliated with an "adversary country" (China, Iran, Russia, N. Korea).
If they don't sell, hosting providers of TikTok application (servers, storage, app store, etc) will be fined up to $500 times the number of users in the US if they continue to host the application
ISPs are explicitly excluded from the bill, and not considered data brokers, which is what the restrictions apply to.
So basically, the law will not require ISPs to block access to TikTok domains and IP addresses. Google search results are also explicitly excluded from the term data broker, and exempt from the restrictions. The only requirement is for app stores to stop hosting the application, so existing installations of the app (after January 2025 assuming ByteDance doesn't sell) will presumably persist and can be used, even if TikTok is banned.
They have the app stores ban it from being downloaded if you are in the USA. This is already done, and app stores aren't affected by on device VPNs, so it wouldn't be that easy to get around.
For example, you can't download this app since (I'm guessing) you live in the USA, similar enough. It's geolocked. Same will happen with Tiktok.
I don't actually have any qualms with that. Power to the people!
In reality though there a planned executive order to forcing Know Your Customer rules on all US web hosts and Internet architecture, so if you're planning on hosting a fediverse server in the US, the US government will need to know your identity.
I think there's a zero chance China would allow the sale. Imagine the precedent giving into such mob tactics would set. US could just go after any successful Chinese company doing business in US and demand that it's sold off to American oligarchs.
Exactly, this asset is worth nothing to the CPP if sold.
If it was a fully private company which is supposed to make money, they would sell it and move on to invest their money somewhere else.
Regulating the market is important and is not done enough in the US, last time was decades ago with AT&T and Standard Oil. Today they should have broken up Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. To prevent monopolies but they don't.
But yeah, politically it's much easier to go after a Chinese company.
I never understood what it would help to have the data on a US server. It's not that difficult to access it there from China. I access my server in Germany via SSH from Korea.
Again, China does not run the company, they just own the leash on the private entrepreneurs who do. That's one of Deng's benefits for implementing capitalism. (mildlyinteresting: the word capitalism isn't capitalized)
Assuming China doesn't have to spend literally any other money, even though countries are constantly investing in infrastructure and security and material to assist the business.
You won't just stop the maintenance if TikTok didn't exist. It's not like all China cares about is data.
Your question was "why would China get data from TikTok when they can just buy it from Meta". If China didn't get the data from ByteDance, ByteDance still incurs the maintenance fee. So no, that is not the expense of getting the data.
The executive order is specifically targeting data brokerage, a practice that is shockingly unregulated. There is no federal law that oversees the collection of and sale of the most intimate details of our lives. And when data is sold to countries of concern, it can become a national security issue.
It's good the bare minimum is being implemented.... though it's weird how two months have passed without updates.
[Singaporean CEO Shou] Chew added that 60% of ByteDance is owned by global institutional investors such as the Carlyle Group, General Atlantic and Susquehanna International Group, while 20% of the firm is owned by Zhang and 20% owned by employees around the world. Three of the company’s five board members are Americans, he said.
ByteDance's owners include investors outside of China (60%), its founders and Chinese investors (20%), and employees (20%).[35] In 2021, the state-owned China Internet Investment Fund purchased a 1% stake in ByteDance's main Chinese subsidiary, Beijing ByteDance Technology (formerly Beijing Douyin Information Service), as a golden share investment[36][37][38] and seated Wu Shugang, a government official with a background in government propaganda, as one of the subsidiary's board members.[39][40][41]
—Wikipedia, check article for sources
In business and finance, a golden share is a nominal share which is able to outvote all other shares in certain specified circumstances
From the article you linked:
Is ByteDance Chinese?
Definitely.
Does the Chinese government own or control ByteDance or TikTok?
Chew has emphatically told Congress that ByteDance is not owned or controlled by the Chinese government.
However, like most other Chinese companies, ByteDance is legally compelled to establish an in-house Communist Party committee composed of employees who are party members.
Analysts have said the “golden shares” provide a way for the Chinese government to get more directly involved with the day-to-day businesses of tech companies, including in the content they provide to the public.
Chew has admitted that the “golden share” exists. But he said it was for the purpose of internet licensing for the Chinese business.
In 2018, China amended its National Intelligence Law, which requires any organization or citizen to support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence work.
That means ByteDance is legally bound to help with gathering intelligence.
In 2021, China introduced a new data security law, which applies to data processing activities conducted outside of the country that may “harm the national security or public interests.”
There is also a cybersecurity law in China, which says the state will take measures to monitor, prevent and handle cybersecurity risks and threats “arising both within and outside the PRC’s territory.”
These vague and broad laws apply to technology companies and may be used to regulate them.
I think the article speaks for itself. It says ByteDance definitely is a Chinese company and then goes on to explain the ways in which it isn’t, including majority ownership. If the US government has the power to kill the company, one might argue that it’s more an American one than Chinese.
The definition of a golden share is effective control. Tell me how that and the following is going "on to explain the ways in which it isn't".
ByteDance was founded in 2012 in Beijing by Zhang Yiming and Liang Rubo, who were college roommates at Tianjin’s Nankai University, according to company information and Zhang’s public speeches.
It has been based in the Chinese capital since then. In 2021, Zhang announced he would step down as CEO of ByteDance and handed the reins to Liang.
The US government has the power to kill Huawei if they wanted to; it's their territory and they can do whatever the heck they want, of course. That doesn't mean Huawei is US-owned.
The definition of a golden share is effective control.
That’s not nothing, but still not the be-all and end-all that you seem to want to make it.
The US government has the power to kill Huawei if they wanted to; it’s their territory and they can do whatever the heck they want, of course. That doesn’t mean Huawei is US-owned.
Huawei Technologies climbed back to the No 1 spot of China’s smartphone market in the initial two weeks of this year, according to a report by research firm Counterpoint, putting more pressure on 2023 industry leader Apple and major mainland rivals in the world’s largest handset market.
This marks the first time Huawei reclaimed the top smartphone sales ranking on the mainland since Washington imposed sanctions on the Shenzhen-based company when it was added to the US trade blacklist in May 2019, which crippled the firm’s once-lucrative handset business, according to the report on Sunday by Counterpoint research analysts Ivan Lam and Zhang Mengmeng.
That resurgence was jump-started by Huawei’s surprise release last August of its Mate 60 Pro 5G smartphone – powered by its advanced Kirin 9000S processor, which was locally developed in spite of US tech sanctions – as well as the firm’s Android replacement mobile platform HarmonyOS, the report said. It also pointed out that brand loyalty among Chinese consumers greatly contributed to the popularity of Huawei’s new 5G handsets.
I'm saying that they have the ability to ban any freaking thing in their territory. That Huawei is doing well outside of the US is irrelevant. If Huawei's US division was forced down by the US, that is killing it, and they're still not American.
That’s not nothing, but still not the be-all and end-all that you seem to want to make it.
Explain further how it isn't a Chinese company despite its origin and its base of operations. Even if it isn't, all that's relevant is that China can influence TikTok into giving them their data for free today.
China can influence TikTok into giving them their data for free today.
Perhaps they could, but there’s no evidence that they as yet have. And of what use is your TikTok data to the Chinese state, anyway? Money is no object to them, and they can buy your data from other US companies as well. Anyone can.
The US government doesn’t care about protecting your data. They care about accessing it themselves and controlling narratives on social media in order to shape public opinion.
Jacobin: Why the Twitter Files Are in Fact a Big DealOn the Left, there’s been a temptation to dismiss the revelations about Twitter’s internal censorship system that have emerged from the so-called Twitter Files project. But that would be a mistake: the news is important and the details are alarming.
Centralized and decentralized platforms share a common set of threats from motivated malicious users—and require a common set of investments to ensure trustworthy, user-focused outcomes.
Many discussions about social media governance and trust and safety are focused on a small number of centralized, corporate-owned platforms that currently dominate the social media landscape: Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and a handful of others. The emergence and growth in popularity of federated social media services, like Mastodon and Bluesky, introduces new opportunities, but also significant new risks and complications. This annex offers an assessment of the trust and safety (T&S) capabilities of federated platforms—with a particular focus on their ability to address collective security risks like coordinated manipulation and disinformation.
Trust and safety my ass. This is about manufacturing consent. They’re failing to control young American’s impression of and reaction to the Gaza genocide that’s being done in their name, so they’re pulling out all the stops now. Not the Onion but the NYT last week: Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe: A surveillance law referred to as Section 702 is needed to protect us from foreign threats.
For most people, "could" is enough to worry about. Just look at the people flocking whenever their app is bought by an advertising company.
(As for the NYT opinion, I'll forward this comment: "Waxman worked under Bush as a senior national security advisor. So the administration that believes in torture is advising us that government surveillance is fine and keeps you safe? Not sure I trust the source." My personal opinion is actually ambivalent towards surveillance, privacy, and safety.)
