Hacker News Reader

1. TikTok is actually not cooperating with the Chinese gov't (and maybe this is the CCP's way of showing them that it goes both ways).

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/technology/china-toutiao-...

> The country’s top media regulator on Tuesday ordered the company, Bytedance, to shut down its app for sharing jokes and silly videos. Vulgar content on the Neihan Duanzi app had “caused strong dislike among internet users,” a brief notice from the State Administration of Radio and Television said. The company was told to clean up its other platforms, too.

This is called being law abiding.

I'm pretty sure that when OP talked about cooperating with Chinese govt. He was talking about what is hinted by trump, that they are doing massive clendestine surveillance on US citizens on behalf of CCP.

(Which incidentally, we now know that some US companies are doing exactly that for the US govt.)

Another theory (mine, as a TikTok user in Asia) is that American TikTok is not worth much compared to the rest of the app’s ecosystem, and therefore being “forced” to sell it is a windfall exit opportunity for Bytedance.

I think there is also a third option (might be a variant of #1): they are cooperating with the CCP, but the CCP does not value what TikTok provides them very highly, and so they don’t care enough to do much

Or CCPs interest in what they get from TikTok doesn't provide much value internationally speaking. They may be more interested in domestic control in their "social credit" system to catch dissenters... where internationally, they would find less valuable information that they can act on.

Just my own conspiracy minded pov. Also, most government and related businesses have already taken the steps to advise their employees don't use the app, and don't have it on devices that come into their offices.

Huawei produces civilization defining infrastructure. TikTok is a social app. The Chinese government's priorities are in the right order

Genuine question: If China's priorities are in the right order, then why is the US giving the social network so much attention, going so far as to label it as a "national security threat" (whatever that means these days)?

Also wouldn't that open US services like facebook and snapchat to the similar treatment by other governments? Why would the US jeopardize their industry like this?

Something doesn't add up.

It doesn't add up because we have a president that can't do math.

ByteDance’s goal is becoming a global company， so TikTok intentionally keep a distance from Chinese gov't from the start.

The cynic in me sees this as a win for the CCP. Maybe this was to set an example for Chinese companies: refuse to play ball with the party and the Evil West that you idolize so much will break your toys.

The current administration has demonstrated how enormously corrupt they are, and we have seen a little bit of circumstantial evidence of "cooperation" between the CCP and the first family. But who knows just how deep that rabbit hole goes?

This is exactly what the general public in China are jesting ByteDance about right now, mocking it as an out-of-favor American lap dog. The CEO actually got labeled as traitor for his past liberal comments.

TikTok is an independent corporate entity...

What do you ask Chinese government to do with an oversea entity. CCP do not have the same influence as US government...

> if national security can be used to override the law, and everything can be a national security threat, then how strong is the foundation of law?

I don't see the POTUS doing anything that is outside the law. I haven't seen it happen once. Heck, even an impeachment investigation didn't even find any broken laws.

There was no investigation. That would have been the Senate's job, and the majority chose to abrogate their responsibility.

What? The Senate sits as jury.

The way I see it is the majority in the house abrogated their responsibility.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." They chose not to, so no witnesses were called, no facts testified to under oath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_against_Do...

I think I see the point of separation of understanding.

The House conducted a House investigation to determine if there were grounds for impeachment. They concluded there were, and they drew up articles of impeachment.

The next step is the actual impeachment trial, where the Senate has the authority to compel witnesses to testify under oath under threat of contempt. The House lacks this power over the other branches of government (i.e. as White House counsel explained, they would not comply with any members of the White House staff being called before House committees).

But since the Senate chose to call no witnesses, no witnesses were compelled to testify under oath in an impeachment trial.

I believe that since there was no support for the impeachment from the House minority, the Senate majority was justified in their action. If the roles were reversed for all parties, I would not find the outcome any less expected.

There's certainly precedent for impeachment to break along simple party lines (for both parties; a similar thing happened with Clinton), but that doesn't mean it's not abrogation of responsibility when it does.

There's a reason Congress has the approval of only 1 in 4 Americans polled.

31 Democrat congressmen joined the Republicans in Clinton's impeachment. Some of the Democrat senators also voted to convict. [1]

Not as exactly clear-cut as this time around.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#:~....

Good point. I agree Congress was notably less partisan during the Clinton era.