I'm confused on why he's leaving. Is the political scope of the role too much for him and/or is this not the role he intended to occupy?
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.
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.
> 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.
But that he would go from CEO to a middle manager a dozen or so rungs in the ladder down from Satya or Larry.
And even though the acquiring company is usually genuine about giving them autonomy often circumstances change and they need to be reined back in.