TikTok CEO Kevin Mayer to leave the company
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing.
If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
The law (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Internet_Security_Law) :
> Regarding the requirements for spot-checks and certifications, international law firms have warned that companies could be asked to provide source code, encryption, or other crucial information for review by the authorities, increasing the risk of this information being lost, passed on to local competitors, or used by the authorities themselves.
Despite having a Chinese parent, isn't it the case that TikTok itself does not operate in China?
And parent company will always have the dibs, if you will, on Tiktok. Regardless of whether tiktok is out of China or in.
This is not about national security. This is economic retaliation in a long brewing cold war over influence and power, backed by lobbyists who do not like being left out in the cold due to China's protectionist policies.
Call it what it is and I would be surprised if more people didn't support it. But it is becoming far too common for many aspects of politics that are driven by profit or control hiding behind the guise of national security.
Even in the current democracy state, is my expectation that our own ones across the European states will do whatever it takes, with various degrees of flexibility.
We have trade-deals across countries, and IMO these trade deals should account for access to markets, e.g., Chinese companies can operate in Europe freely (abiding by our laws) _if_ European companies can operate in China freely as well.
Trade-deals change all the time, and when these change, some companies might get kick off.
I think this is a functional and rational thing to do for the EU.
If you don't have any deals or specific laws about it, then pretty much everything goes. Maybe the EU could have a law that all foreign companies that abide by the EU rules can operate in Europe freely, but I strongly doubt that. Every country does pretty much whatever they want in this regard (e.g. we see it with some countries allowing Huawei to sell 5G equipment, others forbidding it, and others like Germany attempting to forbid it without mentioning Huawei). All these countries have different rules, so they all end up doing their different stuff.
China (+) is buying lots of EU companies, "forcing" them to produce and do engineering in China, with a Chinese partner, and then ripping them completely off, as part of their 2025 program.
TBH I'm very concerned about some of the companies they have bought (e.g. Rukka). I am certain this is good for China, but I don't see how this can be good for the EU in the long term. China is very open that their plan is to acquire and become leaders in the technology, and then flip a switch and cut us out.. but they are the highest bidders today...
(+) these are actually chinese companies, but sponsored and ordered by the Chinese government, with essentially unlimited funds.
These national security implications are probably far-fetched, but there's some theoretical basis for action here...
[1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-co...
What does that have to do with empires? An empire rules over others, while any country will take care of its own.
The smart ones do.
While TikTok is more domestic. Huawei is definitely viewed as an empire threat and the US is acting way beyond what other countries are doing.
See what happened to Alstom for example. There is a book about that, "The American Trap".
What does the OP not understand? The concern of China controlling key economic and tech areas? OR that a president can block a company from operating in his country?
As a European, I might not agree with the decision but I do understand the general concern behind it.
Also, the same way "America" can mean "the US", it's not strange to see people colloquially refer to the EU countries as "Europe", though both are, technically, not correct.
There are certain aspects in how things work in the US that are so far disconnected to how it is, in most of Europe, that is baffling. By an large, this difference applies to most of Europe.
It is of course an oversimplification. But, here are a few boggling things: Politics (in particular, money in politics that looks like plain bribery, or political and misleading ads everywhere), for profit private prisons, no maternity leave, unpaid internships, healthcare related personal bankruptcies.
The list goes on and on, and, since this is a by and large difference to Europe, you tend to see the "As a European" phrase.
There are countries in Europe that have had Gulags in the last 50 years, I doubt they are boggled by the idea of a for-profit prison system.
As a European who has lived in America and now in SEA, this "as a European" is used by people who generally don't understand the variety of different life experience of people in Europe.
I think it also tries to convey how different "a very large number of countries and millions of people" views X. It will always be a generalization.
So, if you consider "as a European" to be "Western Europe", it very often applies, overall. It is a generalization, after all. And, as far as generalizations go, I honestly think "as a European", or... maybe better "as a Western European", if you will, to be very useful way to express a very complex connection, and difference in opinion or... zeitgeist. For example, it helps illuminate the dichotomy in the reaction to private philanthropy in the US that should have never been necessary. For Americans, it is accepted that it is a heart warming act, while (for a European), it more often comes across as dystopian.
As a final note, I'm wondering if you might not want to see that argument I'm presenting. Because you point out how my case with ads and money in politics isn't that uncommon in western Europe. Let's be clear, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, or that Europe is problem free or perfect, or anything like that, but the problem and perception of it, is worlds apart. Attack ads come across as a joke that have no place in political discourse, yet, it is everywhere in the US.
But then again, maybe you are right. It is after all pretending to include the "shared voice" of people who do might very well not share that voice. It can be disingenuous. I wonder if making it more specific will still open up for smaller subsets that disagree. If you say "as a Norwegian", you are still implying agreement from others that will very much disagree.
The EU does stuff, but it is far more interested in a being a trade block than a protector of liberal democracy.
"As an European" is a good way to state that you are indeed not an american. The general assumption on places like hn is that you are one. It's visible in the topic choices. As an example, the team viewer IPO, even though it's been a multibillion IPO, didn't get into hn while tons of SV tech startups do.
When it comes to trending topics, as an insomniac I commonly find myself posting at times where Europeans or Asians dominate. Even then, US stories often dominate because so many non-americans are apparently just as obsessed with FAANG/Trump/NSA hotbutton stories as Americans (edit: at least when restricted in both cases to political wonks who post on the internet). One does get a lot of interesting perspectives from non-americans in such discussions. But "as a person from somewhere that doesn't suck, here's why you suck", generally isn't one of them.
- We put a higher value on diplomacy and less on force
- I don't hear leaders say "God save <our own country>" (might be wrong here)
- We don't want to put guns in everyone's hands
- We have a more social system
- We don't spy on our allies for economical gains
- Our world is bigger than our country or continent
- We can point out various countries on a world map ;)
- Obssesed with American Politics
- Consider themselves experts on issues they don't really understand
If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them.
To build self-sustaining growth, a country must establish the positive feedback loop of consuming its own goods.
I feel like if you were to replace China with Europe your statement would still apply for the software sector.
The latest big move in that direction was the new Foreign Investment Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_... that went into effect this year, which introduced a bunch of big changes, such as switching from the previous system of "everything is off-limits to foreign investment unless explicitly allowed" to "everything is open to foreign investment unless explicitly forbidden". That list of restrictions http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/wzs/202006/20200624143734575.pdf already includes provisions for further opening in the future, such as removing the last restrictions on manufacturing passenger cars by 2022. (Special-purpose vehicles, electric cars and commercial vehicles are already exempt.)
If that doesn't demonstrate "intention of opening up", I don't know what would.
The only thing about China that hasn't changed seems to be Western commentators' knowledge of it.
China has only recently become a big enough economy in their own right to say "nice try but no thanks" to US driven international law.
If this is the case, why are they forcing them to sell specifically to a US company rather than any non-Chinese company with less draconian laws (EU, etc).
China has some of the most draconian restrictions on foreign ownership anywhere yet still gets access to foreign markets. Major US corporations are often forced to set up Chinese-majority-owned subsidiaries to operate in China and must cede huge amounts of control to the Chinese government. Time after time, this results in locals ripping off the technology of the foreign company and then the foreign company being replaced by a local company. Look at the long history of US tech startups failing in China.
The point is that whether you think this specific action is right or wrong, it's totally normal tit-for-tat geopolitics. Countries impose tons of restrictions on foreign-owned corporations. You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign.
This is your idea of doing something simple? You can set up other kinds of corporation like LLC at least. Are other countries less restrictive? Seems like kind of a messy legal situation either way.
In Mexico it's really hard to buy property as a foreigner. It used to be you could not own coastal property at all, not sure if still true.
But I care that some president can simply say "Hey specific corporation, you have 45 days to comply with the rules that are in my head."
> You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign.
Sure, that is a rule in the law, no problem with that. But what if I'm friends with Trump and he makes an exception just for me?
Here in Europe, we have separation of law, government and religion. I know it's a bit more blurry in the states (see the "In god we trust"). In this case (and in some other cases such as pardoning prisoners), your government seems to interfere with your law. In my opinion, that becomes very tricky business if you start eroding those rules. Because when you're friends with the government, the law doesn't apply to you. And if you're enemy with the government, forget about your rights.
Religion has nothing to do with it, besides indicating a familiarity with US politics being mistaken as understanding.
It was just another example how US blurs things that should be separated. In most European countries this would be a big NO for government to express a certain religion. You have it literally printed on your money.
This once again has very little to do with the situation at hand though I’m afraid, if you’d like more information as to why a president can seemingly tell a specific corporation what to do on a whim, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen...
In both instances they're the result of the Constitution being so old and sacrosanct that you can no longer amend it in a meaningful way. You simply change the norms, stack the courts, and you've knocked out the leg of the stool that was supposed to uphold these ideals. A modern president moving around money allocated by Congress flies in the face of the Constitution. Same with an immigration ban based on religion. But the game has changed to "us v them", and if you get enough of your team in the judiciary they'll sign off whatever you want.
Really, nobody should be disagreeing that the rise of the PRC poses a serious threat to US interests, but wrapping everything in the boogeyman of national security and issuing legally dubious executive orders such as the one banning TikTok and WeChat give critics ammunition to claim we're not really following any sort of process here (i.e. the rule of law).
"We need to do something about the PRC" is not a foundation for standing up to the PRC. Praising actions like the current fiasco with TikTok feels like praising a doctor who assaulted 15 people in the ER, vomited on the floor, punched a nurse in the face, but properly stitched up someone who had gotten their lip busted before leaving their shift. Nothing that has been done really sets up a plan for dealing with China even in the immediate future. The sudden forced closure of the Houston consulate lacks public context for the rapid escalation in hostilities and the same goes for the ban on Huawei. I have no doubt that there is something suspicious going on, but it is difficult to see a cohesive vision in all of these thrusts against the PRC and that is terrifying.
What country do you live where this is not true?
How did you feel about the COVID shutdown? Millions of businesses were just forced by government on very short notice to shut down operation
Why do we allow free market access to chinese companies when they don't? Are we crazy? Why not give the keys to our factories/companies while we are at it?
We have been open, we gave them the opportunity to reciprocate, they refused, then we close up shop for them. It is only fair. We are an open society, but we are not idiots, (at least I like to think so...).
Same reason why we don't demand a level playing field between sheep and wolves...
China is a poor, third-world country.
No. It's a very dangerous economic and military juggernaut that abuses its population as well as the environment. Let's be real.
The only reasons that China passes the sniff test is because they have the biggest population that skews averages and because they also have insane income inequality. Only CCP propagandists would try to insist that a nation with the money for nukes and aircraft carriers is still “developing” :^)
European side:
1. Automotive: BMW, Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, all German companies, have complete access to the Chinese automotive market. Volkswagen would be dead, because of the diesel-gate scandal, if it weren’t for the Chinese market saving their sorry asses. BMW probably makes more money from the Chinese market, than any other market worldwide. And these German companies have almost 100 years of manufacturing knowledge, that the Chinese side did not have. Is this fair? You decide.
2. Airplanes: Europe has Airbus, which has some 50% of the Chinese aviation market. This looks like a monopoly here in favor of the Europeans and Americans. Will the Europeans allow Comac to compete fairly when they get their passenger planes airworthy? That is debatable.
3. Luxury products: European brands have a captive market in China. Louis Vuitton is French. Other Italian brands, etc, they all have free access to the Chinese market. Do you see any Chinese luxury products in Europe? Zero. Is this fair? You decide.
4. Software: Europe has SAP, Siemens, also German companies. These companies can freely sell in the Chinese market. Is there a similar Chinese company that can sell into the European market? I can’t even think of one. Is this fair? You decide.
Chinese side:
1. 5G: The Chinese finally create a new technology that they have full intellectual property rights to, the 5G internet, and what happens? They are now banned from every single European country. The reason? The potential for spying. LOL. How convenient of an excuse from the Europeans.
2. China has WeChat, but this appears to be irrelevant in Europe.
3. China has Alibaba, but this is also irrelevant in Europe.
4. China has mobile phone makers, but all are Android. And guess where the majority profits go to? The United States companies, Google, Qualcomm, etc.
It appears that the European side makes the lions share of the profits. They earn more from branding and royalties. Whereas it seems the Chinese side makes peanuts in comparison, and they must fight for the scraps in volume, to earn a decent profit. Is that fair? You decide.
This is obviously not fully conclusive, but each side plays to their own strengths.
Chinese companies may own a significant share of 5G-related patents, but other companies (like Samsung, Ericsson, Qualcomm) weren't just idly sitting by, so the intellectual property rights are distributed piecemeal across multinational companies. https://www.iam-media.com/who-leading-5g-patent-race
> the 5G internet, and what happens? They are now banned from every single European country.
Has any European country besides the UK even taken steps in the direction of banning Huawei or other Chinese companies? And I thought even the UK hasn't implemented a ban yet?
That said, surely his contract has provisions for a payout should his company gets acquired. Wouldn't leaving before any transaction close void that?
http://en.people.cn/n3/2020/0815/c90000-9721956.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12295304/boris-johnson-clashes...
I am guessing it will be official soon.
If there wasn't a strong leader already to take his place then it would be a very negative decision on Kevin's part.
Previously there was still hope of selling TikTok globally.
More importantly it seems that Kevin/TikTok has no influence at all in the negotiations - it is purely between Bytedance and the relevant companies. This is probably the real reason he's leaving - he's in no position to shape the deal and it isn't looking good for him right now.
Rather that than force-selling the US part at a bargain price.
Europe would love a social media giant that could match those of the US. And just behaved better than the US ones when it came to taxes and data privacy ...
Unlike maybe Huawei, TikTok tried to play ball with the US. As far as I can see they were aiming to spin off the international part of TikTok as a US firm, IPOed on the US stock markets. That is why they hired Americans as CEO, developers, managers, board members ...
European valuations are kept artificially low by, well, it seems just by being in Europe. With companies struggling from covid, the usual lack of European leadership on any sort of stimulus, and the US not in a position to bail the European economy out again a la 2008, there are a lot of buying opportunities.
Currently the sentiment is mainly confined to political and business circles, but I wouldn't be surprised if it overflows into the general public once jobs currently on wage support start disappearing next year.
This is new to me, do you have a source? To me the US was in big trouble at the time, no resources to bail out anyone really...
Edit: clarification.
Regardless, the media has convinced people that only the Republicans and Trump want to see something done about TikTok, but, in fact, there are plenty of Democrats who are also wary of TikTok. Maybe they don't want an outright ban, but they want something done. But since that doesn't garner as many clicks, there will be a bunch of stories claiming it's a bad idea because Trump did it.
There are real reasons we should be worried about the CCP right now. If you track the news, you'll see lots of people being found to be CCP spies and charged. There is a big problem with the CCP having spies and/or people friendly to the CCP in government and academia. Don't let your hatred for Trump blind you to the fact that the CCP is rapidly becoming an issue.
You fail to see the point. I don't care either way how you wish to view the president, but your projections serve no purpose in understanding the reason why these events are taking place and what their ramifications are. As I stated in another comment, you seem to have a very shallow view of politics that doesn't extend past media hyperbole.
We are not at the beginning of a war. I recommend you go outside for a breath of fresh air.
Or is the national security concern that the Chinese government can force TikTok to give up their data to Chinese authorities?
So China has 1.4 billion people to data mine on using a minority-report-like data warehouse mega structure in the like of which the world has never seen before, and all of those people are in their own jurisdiction. Assuming that’s the kind of infrastructure the Chinese government can build and is fully operational, why would they justify the time, cost, and energy required to fetch what meme someone’s looking at from overseas and risk damaging their already shaky reputation with their biggest trading partner? Even if there’s a conspiracy and they cared about what your phone number was or where you lived, what could they do with it? Yes clearly the most plausible theory is that they’re kidnapping Americans from their homes in broad daylight. Or perhaps covid was synthesized in a lab so next year Americans will be getting biological super weapons mailed to them. Or maybe 5G is a mind control device that’s hiding the truth from all of us, the truth that you can parse html with regex.
Anyways, we have a presidency largely based on putting pressure on China with a proven history of reactionary measures would, make a reactionary anti-china measure for the sake of supporting a partisan policy right before the November election.
There are obviously a lot of shady things we are seeing surfacing from the Chinese government that warrant further investigation, and there are diligent people are on the ground right now trying to push through the secrecy of that government. But with Tiktok, it’s a baseless conspiracy theory rooted in irrational fear that’s being used as a political tool.
Here's a simplified version of how the government thinks about it:
If Facebook has data on a government employee, it's not a big deal, because Facebook stores that data in the US, and is friendly to the US, and if they do anything bad, they ultimately answer to the laws and regulations of the US government. These things are not necessarily the case for TikTok data.
This is pretty much the first time that a service operated under the laws of a US rival has become popular in the US.
Of course Fox News, etc, claim "this Chinese app is subverting democracy", etc, but IMHO they were just using it to communicate...
ANYTHING is possible in the USA since that guy got president.
Should I now think less of Obama on the off chance he secretly spanks his wife in bed?
My point is you have to be very far removed from society to believe that no one has ever talked in a vulgar fashion, especially in a country as sexualized as ours. And to then equate vulgar chat in private conversation somehow with the idea that nonsense is suddenly an acceptable state for Americans. You can think what you want.
Sorry, the issue isn't the private conversation, the issue is that the contents of that conversation was him saying he can get away sexually assaulting women because of he's a "star". If Barack Obama was recorded saying something like that while talking to friends, would you defend him?
Assume what you want, I don't support Trump and apparently I don't need to attract hate from others like you, not that I am in any way suprised.
>If Barack Obama was recorded saying something like that while talking to friends, would you defend him?
I wouldn't care. Not a single bone in my body would resonate emotionally with what he said, because seemingly I have the rare, esoteric knowledge of understanding that humans will talk about particularly dirty topics when they're with friends.
>Holy bejesus. And how is his ability to lead a country? Do you think it is as good/poor as how he seemingly treat random women?
I don't know how to get across to you the point that people talk about dirty things in private. If you want to believe that that kind of conversation is the domain of devils, be my guest, you don't seem like the type to be swayed by reason.
>On the topic of ethics, how about the ethics of having sex with (and then paying off) a porn star
I still don't care, unsurprisingly. It really isn't that hard.
>How shallow does your judgement go
Because I choose not to base your abilities on how you talk to your friends in private? Then release all of your text messages for the public to see, since you seem to be living in a reality where people all hold hands and sing kumbaya, and talk about science and hand-holding every waking moment of the day. You have a job, don't you? Would you also be so deaf to posit to me you don't have any skeletons in your closet? I'm able to make the reasonable judgement that the president doesn't go around for his scheduled 2 PM rape session every Thursday, but apparently that's too much, and I should dial back my comparisons to the guy's humanity.
>OK Genghis Khan was a good leader, he also did a lot of raping, sadly for Trump and his defenders the kind of leadership needed nowadays isn't the 11th century kind and I doubt he could ride a horse fast
Truly ironic that you're simultaneously able to make the distinction there is not a 1:1 correlation with leadership capability and personal action for a literal rapist but not for the president. If anything this discussion has shown me how disgustingly vapid people can become when they are unable to refrain from having their emotion leak through every single post when the word "Trump" is brought up.
> I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Those very heavily imply non-consent. The vulgarity comes much later as an issue.
More so, Obama spanking his wife in bed is a hopefully consensual private act between husband and wife. Trump talking about random women, who are not his wives nor in a relationship with him as to how he just kisses them and they let him since he has the power is for one, rape, and two, cheating on his wife.
Rather different scenarios.
>Trump talking about random women, who are not his wives nor in a relationship with him as to how he just kisses them and they let him since he has the power is for one, rape, and two, cheating on his wife.
I'd rather not have a discussion on the ethics of gossip, as it would achieve absolutely nothing
Holy bejesus. And how is his ability to lead a country? Do you think it is as good/poor as how he seemingly treat random women?
On the topic of ethics, how about the ethics of having sex with (and then paying off) a porn star, that's not gossip since the courts have basically confirmed Stormy Daniels told the truth.
How shallow does your judgement go (oh I can guess, but I thought I'd prompt you to do some self-reflection)? Being a leader is mostly about people skills, and his rapey hands should make you ask whether he respects women or not, and whether that would extend to him respecting other people or not. OK Genghis Khan was a good leader, he also did a lot of raping, sadly for Trump and his defenders the kind of leadership needed nowadays isn't the 11th century kind and I doubt he could ride a horse fast.
I don't agree with this. Being a leader is more about vision, about where he wanna go. Like Jobs, everyone under him thought he was an asshole. A lot of great leaders in human history were just pretty bad examples in terms of personal life. It is nice to have a high moral standard for political figures. But it is just difficult to be perfect. Obama, from my point view, is a nice man. But a failed president achieved nothing during his presidency.
Using vulgar phraseology is not the issue here. I'm not sure how you came away with that impression.
When you assume that, then the president looks quite like the rare unique case, wouldn't you say?
In other words, I'd think lesser of my friend for saying something like that to me, or overhearing him in another conversation. The same goes doubly for the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet.
>a role which we expect not only the highest levels of decorum but also humility and respect for the citizens
That has never been the case. Nixon was known to vilify journalists, Clinton had already been known for his womanizing and sexual unforwardness, and LBJ pissed in the street casually. Never have we had a highly curated robot as a president, they all have quirks that would turn off segments of the population if it were common knowledge.
He was allowed to coordinate a government-wide campaign that was impacting a large amount of people, and violated various integrity codes of NOAA and resulted in citizens being provided with false information, as well as eroded the trust of people in an integral agency.
Whether he is allowed to or not is up for the courts to decide.
But on being "allowed to", incredibly Trump is surrounded by Yes-Men, and it seems only fools dare accept his appointment, even fools whose reputation was great so far in their lives: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/12/10/john-kelly-le... . Of course there are a lot things Congress and Senate can do to block him (but Mitch McConnell is another Yes-men, what is it with conservatives and their lack of spines?), but in the example of TikTok, he used executive order to demand the stuff.
* I bet feds and their employees/contractors are not using zoom for official business
* Most people aren't really putting their personal lives on zoom outside of work
You can't do either with a Chinese company.
TikTok is a subsidiary of ByteDance which is headquartered in Beijing. It operates under US law, and it operates under the control of a parent company that operates under CCP control.
> You're just repeating disinformation spread by the US government.
The claims made by the person you are responding to are not things the US government has said. In fact, you can file suit against foreign companies in the US -- this person's misunderstanding of the situation has nothing to do with the US government's stated concerns.
The US subsidiary of Bytedance that operates TikTok is subjected to US jurisdiction and US laws. US government has equal amount of control over it compared to Facebook. TikTok was sued and fined before for breaking under age related laws.
Bytedance's CEO is Zhang yiming, is a Chinese national. And its board has one Chinese national and three non-Chinese nationals. It's owned by a number of international investors, these investors likely have a say in the company as well. These people would not have built a company with Chinese government DNA. Zhang yiming himself has criticized the government in the past. Although he has toed with Chinese government lines in China because he has to. But he personally admires the US and its political culture. The management is also saying they are moving HQ to other countries. I think given the management's mindset, they really want to deal as little with the Chinese government as possible. Working on behalf of the government, nah, its not their mindset. To be honest, it might be even smart for the US government to lure Bytedance management, get them to declare they support liberalism and American values and use Bytedance to spread American values to China. Instead, US gov's action to force a sale is basically extortion and coercion. And having government take a huge chuck of the transaction is stealing personal property. It goes against all that US stands for, rule of law, justice, protection of private property. There are a lot of people in China loves the US and American values like the above, in turn they emigrate to the US and hate Chinese government. That image has definitely being broken a bit by all of this.
[0]: https://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-targets-so...
> They think china is in every corner trying to steal their data
Because they factually are. But as some people misunderstand, they're not interested in your grandma's recipes or your mom's credit card number -- they're amassing data that is a gold mine for targeted military intelligence operations.
https://www.wired.com/story/china-equifax-anthem-marriott-op...
The location of incorporation bears no relevance on the control on the people and property within the physical jurisdiction of a country. Bytedance's physical headquarters is in Beijing.
> Bytedance's CEO is Zhang yiming, is a Chinese national. And its board has one Chinese national and three non-Chinese nationals. It's owned by a number of international investors, these investors likely have a say in the company as well. These people would not have built a company with Chinese government DNA. Zhang yiming himself has criticized the government in the past. Although he has toed with Chinese government lines in China because he has to. But he personally admires the US and its political culture. The management is also saying they are moving HQ to other countries. I think given the management's mindset, they really want to deal as little with the Chinese government as possible
Then it should be clear how much power the CCP has over them, when he says things like this:
> in April 2018 the government compelled ByteDance to shut down its popular “Neihan Duanzi” (“inside jokes”) app for good due to its “vulgar” content. In response, Zhang issued a letter of self-criticism where he said, “Our product took the wrong path, and content appeared that was incommensurate with socialist core values.” He also promised that the firm would in the future “Further deepen cooperation with authoritative [official party] media, elevating distribution of authoritative media content, ensuring that authoritative [official party] media voices are broadcast to strength.” [0]
[0]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/16/bytedance-cant-outrun-b...
Bear in mind here, I am simply listing reasons why the US government would be marginally concerned about ByteDance in comparison to domestic social media, not defending the mechanisms by which this current administration is handling things.
b) TikTok has been collecting a LOT of data including your personal details, contacts, location, WiFi networks etc. It's not just stupid videos it was everything they could get which on Android at least is a lot.
c) Given the history with previous Chinese owned companies and with overseas companies operating in China there have been requirements that data is made accessible to the government.
China right now monitors users behaviour online and kidnaps them for "re-education". We should not be giving them the tools to keep doing that.
> what it means for the global role I signed up for.
> I understand that the role that I signed up for—including running TikTok globally—will look very different as a result of the US
> We appreciate that the political dynamics of the last few months have significantly changed what the scope of Kevin’s role
Not alotta scope.
And even though the acquiring company is usually genuine about giving them autonomy often circumstances change and they need to be reined back in.
My naive view was that CEO is in charge of everything, and thus have practically maximum scope. It turns out that is only the case for CEO who wants to stay with the company for a long time. For CEO who doesn't treat the company as their baby, they can potentially focus more on "building a resume" so they can move to be a CEO of a bigger company.
My suspicion is that Kevin Mayer had no intention to stay with TikTok for long in the first place. He just want to demonstrate that he can run a global company, and then jump ship to some other place.
Kevin wants to run a company of note with global scale, so he probably thought TikTok would be a good fit. He brings lots of media experience to what is, from one perspective, a media company.
He's probably severely disappointed that his incredibly short stint as CEO is being undone by US politics and M&A at big cap tech companies. Two major career opportunities followed by utter disappointment in less than six months. It's got to hurt, even with the amount of money he makes.
But that he would go from CEO to a middle manager a dozen or so rungs in the ladder down from Satya or Larry.
(actually Disney as a company impresses me even though I don’t like the product).
Theme parks that must remain open.
A back catalog of tens of thousands of movies made since 1924 exclusively available through your Disney+ membership.
Increasingly, all of American pop culture, super heroes, and sci-fi mythos.
It's a bland brand, but I'm not sure Netflix is any better with their willingness to fund shows only as long as the cost to viewer ratio is low.
I really want to disrupt these hulking media buffet companies.
For a similar price with Netflix you get movies + TV shows. Granted that the selection of movies on Sky Cinema do seem better, but if you're a fan of both then its still hard to beat Netflix's offering
The only ridiculous thing is that this is happening unregulated.
Thought-provoking for sure. I suppose we are all bystanders in these commercial battles and I am not sure we all win. Sorry times.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/24/tiktok-sues-the-u-s-govern...
b) Oracle Field Sales will be compensated by how many times they can mention TikTok to middle managers on the golf course.
c) Endless ads about how TikTok is powered by Oracle Cloud.
The executive order bans (to-be-defined) transactions with ByteDance and subsidiaries with the carve-out of "notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order."
Wasn't it going to be required by law for Kevin Mayer (as an American) to leave TikTok or become a lame-duck CEO? If he didn't leave, he couldn't accept, for example, new stock grants.
Working for TikTok and holding an American passport is a colossally dumb idea.