• Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    If the Chinese government is behind this, it’s a great play. Having Joe Biden be “the guy who banned tik tok” would severely undermine his election chances.

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

    There will be a rush of US startups to replace it, and they will all be stage 1 enshittification, so they might actually be good for a while, like TikTok once was.

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

    First, negotiations are not yet over, so they’re hoping courts overturn the ban.

    Second, TikTok is very popular outside the US too, though 40% of ad revenue is in the US. They’d survive.

    • kevincox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Even if they do plan to sell they wouldn’t say it. If buyers think that a sale is inevitable they can offer less because they “don’t have a choice” but to sell. If they act as if their plan is to pull out the buyers need to not just make them an offer that is higher than the others, but also high enough to make them reconsider their whole position.

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

        This is right on. The best PR right now is to say they’ll never sell. Take a hard line while they challenge the law in court. They can always have acquisition meetings in private, and announce it out of nowhere at the last second if they do find a buyer.

  • ArugulaZ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s Vine time! What? Just… just bring it back. Call it “Kudzu” or some crap if Elon Musk owns the rights to Vine.

    • UFO64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Exactly. We spent four years playing into their hands, its going to take us decades to recover from that mistake.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Nah, they’ll sell. It would be foolish for them to admit it publicly, that would drive down the price. They’d also lose influence in the American media landscape if they killed TikTok. Finally, they’re fighting this law in the courts, and admitting they’d sell if forced too would be weakening their position. It’s not like selling would really hamper CCP control all that much, they’d just send texts to people’s personal phones when they need something instead of sending official emails.

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

    If they said or implied anything else, they would lose all leverage. The public couldn’t care less about who owns tiktok, so they need people to think they’ll lose it to have any public support.

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

    I do wonder if this is america being anti communist as history has shown before. Not to say China is actually communist but the economic system is hybrid socialist/capitalist and China is catching up or surpassing america so with this said what’s to say america starts using this tactic against more of chinas Chinese owned exports?

    Beyond that america has meta which has done much the same as tiktok, targeting youth, furthering mental health issue, spying, anti trust and coverups yet they get a slap on the wrists.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Anti communist? With everything else we buy from China, this is the tipping point to be anti-communist? How about all the US social media platforms that China won’t let in? Is that “anti-capitalist?”

      • squid_slime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        socialism has always been anti capitalism. socialism is based on principles like international revolution and a highly configured economic structures whereas capitalism is extraction of capital which western countries have been doing in china as much as china will allow but this isn’t what i am arguing.

        something to keep in mind is that we don’t buy tiktok, similarly to meta and alphabet (google).

        brief easy to read history of cold war activity.

        Cuba and North Korea (the forgotten war) are both good to look in to. i hope the history can bring context to my previous statement as geopolitics is never as it seems.

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

          While I appreciate the additional info, that really doesn’t add to the conversation about what the tipping point is for the parent comment.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/tiktok-bill-foreign-influence/677806/

      It’s less about communism and more about authoritarianism. Even historically, communism was (IMO) just the trigger word associated with a slide into authoritarianism … which is what seemingly happened in countries that had a communist uprising to overthrow the government and broader “owning class.”

      China seemed like they were on course to be a friendly communist country at one point, but they’ve slid back into authoritarianism under Xi.

      I fully expect more hostility towards Chinese exports. Part of the reason for that is going to be that China is happy to use government money to subsidize certain industries to help gain dominance (Sherrod Brown - D Ohio) was recently speaking out about the risk Chinese subsidized EVs pose to the US auto industry domestically and internationally.

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

        communism is not innately authoritarian same with libertarianism and capitalism instead its bad actors that make it so and once bad actors get involved then communism is not meeting its definition. china is a weird one where its communist in name alone with its hybrid economic system and repressive regime which goes against core principles of socialism/communism. i think the death of the USSR which had lead the revolution, as well as the many western embargoes on socialist countries have soured relations.

        if your interested in podcasts id like to recommend you listen to blowback as it follows US hostilities against socialism/communism. i believe its on several platforms

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          A part of me genuinely would like to see communism work.

          Another part of my looks at the past century and sees the same pattern of well meaning revolution to communism, that results in a corrupt government that owns and controls everything.

          I don’t think the Russian people that got the ball rolling for the USSR were stupid or evil, but I also don’t think it worked out like they wanted… and I think that’s true of every other case of communism that’s been tried in practice.

          Part of the problem is without ownership, you don’t own the situation. Which house is taken better care of, the one that’s rented or the one that’s owned?

          Another social mind game, are you better off getting into an accident with 1 person around to call for help or 20? It’s been shown that when people can put off responsibility/assume someone else is going to “own” the situation, they do.

          I think capitalism with regulation to keep money out of politics, mixed with more social programs (particularly socializing the insurance industry) makes the most sense.

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

            personally, communism in a capitalistic world is very hard.

            Cuba wanted to break away from American capitalists and gangsters using Cuba to store money and exploit the Cubans for sugar plantations then the US sets embargoes, Cuba maintains its independence and manages to get its literacy level up to 1953—56% 1970—88% 1986—nearly 100% implemented free social health care with newly built hospitals and students had to work in small towns and villages for part of they’re doctorate. but American meddling was constant with the Cuban missile crises which laughable America clutched they’re purls whilst having setup nukes on the USSR’s doorstep as if that wasn’t threatening.

            Cuba has sadly remained under the sanctions and is struggling to stay afloat.

            its important to view economics outside of our place of living, while western life is so so although homelessness is forever on the rise but outside of these countries life is different and the people are very much exploited by capitalism whether through ford or amazon, this is why we live the way we do.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    If money wasn’t the point, then influence was. Congress is right to shut them down.

    Foreign owned, FARA-unregistered influence operations have never been a facet of “free speech” in the USA.

    • The Uncanny Observer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean, not on the surface. But lobby groups working for foreign governments operate in Washington to this day, and they’re ignored because Congress doesn’t want to shut the money tap off.

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

      It’s pretty weird that they’d admit it.

      The smart move would have been to sell it and take the L, and use the new money to build the next thing.