49 ms·

> And it's even more implausible to think China would allow this as a result of a US law aimed at limiting China's power. Well that’s the crux, isn’t it. If T

> And it's even more implausible to think China would allow this as a result of a US law aimed at limiting China's power. Well that’s the crux, isn’t it. If TikTok is just a business, like ByteDance insists, any business would rather get something than nothing. So ByteDance would sell. If TikTok isn’t merely a business but rather an organ of soft power, and China blocks a sale, then the suspicions of the U.S. intelligence community are confirmed.

linearrust 2y ago
> If TikTok is just a business, like ByteDance insists, any business would rather get something than nothing. So ByteDance would sell. Using that logic, facebook, google, etc are not businesses either since they chose to be banned from china.
- bouncing 2y ago
  The stance of the US is that ByteDance has to sell off what is already a separate product (TikTok). Google, Facebook etc don't have a "Chinese market" product at all, so there's nothing to sell off. If they did have a Chinese market product, worth many tens of billions of dollars, they would very likely sell it rather than spike it.
mrangle 2y ago
That's weak if common logic. Wealthy people burn a lot of money out of spite, constantly. Essentially, you are asking everyone to assume that Bytdance does not really have a financial choice in the matter, and therefore financial irrationality is evidence of corruption. When the reality is that the money may not mean as much to them as you are asking people to assume, and that in lieu of a payout they'd rather not reward a sale to the country that is strong-arming them. Which few with financial flexibility, and a healthy ego, would.
powerapple 2y ago
ByteDance would sell, but China is blocking it for export restrictions. It does not confirm anything. China is not a business, and it will look bad if US can force ByteDance to sell. You are mixing up ByteDance and China. China is not responsible for returns to ByteDance shareholders.

linearrust 2y ago

> If TikTok is just a business, like ByteDance insists, any business would rather get something than nothing. So ByteDance would sell. Using that logic, facebook, google, etc are not businesses either since they chose to be banned from china.

bouncing 2y ago
The stance of the US is that ByteDance has to sell off what is already a separate product (TikTok). Google, Facebook etc don't have a "Chinese market" product at all, so there's nothing to sell off. If they did have a Chinese market product, worth many tens of billions of dollars, they would very likely sell it rather than spike it.

mrangle 2y ago

That's weak if common logic. Wealthy people burn a lot of money out of spite, constantly. Essentially, you are asking everyone to assume that Bytdance does not really have a financial choice in the matter, and therefore financial irrationality is evidence of corruption. When the reality is that the money may not mean as much to them as you are asking people to assume, and that in lieu of a payout they'd rather not reward a sale to the country that is strong-arming them. Which few with financial flexibility, and a healthy ego, would.

powerapple 2y ago

ByteDance would sell, but China is blocking it for export restrictions. It does not confirm anything. China is not a business, and it will look bad if US can force ByteDance to sell. You are mixing up ByteDance and China. China is not responsible for returns to ByteDance shareholders.