Hacker News Reader

Comment by epolanski | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand the argument here, Tik Tok would maximize their monetization in US but not in other markets?

I don't buy it.

Think of it like consumer protection laws - Ford has higher safety requirements for the vehicles they sell domestically than they do for those sold in Mexico. Thus, it could be argued that they are not maximizing their monetization of the US market by cutting out expensive safety features that consumers don't pay extra for.

China is wise to have such laws to protect their citizens.

I am a farmer, I grow tomatoes. The ones I sell to large markets, I use pesticides, herbicides, petrochemical fertilizers, etc etc. The ones I grow for my own consumption and for sale at the local market -- those get organic compost and no chemical treatments.

I am a customer. I eat tomatoes. I choose which tomatoes to buy on my personal preferences.

This presumes that:

1) I sell to you my special and cherished resource. You may live in the fever dream of "market rules all", but a cold surprise may come that not everyone does.

2) You can afford what I sell - especially if political winds blow so that your benevolent rulers choose to impose 1000% tariffs on my good tomatoes

3) That you even _know_ there's a difference, and that tomatoes come from a farm and not the store or a can.

Where is TikTok not maximizing monetization? If you mean the GP's comment on China's ban on the algorithm originally used then you are missing a critical aspect of that: It wasn't TikTok's choice to stop or decrease monetization there.

Also, even if they were differently monetizing by region, you are also missing the non-monetary reasons this might happen: Manipulation & propaganda. Even aside from any formal policy by the Chinese govermnent self-censorship by businesses and individuals for anything the Party might not like is very common. Also common is the government dictating the actions a Chinese company may take abroad for these same efforts in influencing foreign opinions.

Corporations in China all operate at the behest of "the people" (aka the party). If the government thinks a product is damaging or harmful to society, it can be taken off the market without any legal mechanisms necessary.

Unlike in America where... they say it's a national security threat and vote to remove it?

> they say it's a national security threat and vote to remove it?

From app stores and American hosting. Only if Bytedance doesn’t sell TikTok to e.g. a French or Indian or American owner. TikTok.com will still resolve (unless Bytedance blocks it).

China literally blocks information.

Only the control by a foreign adversary part is being threatened in the US, not the algorithmic opium part twisting the minds of the population. They're two different things. The US so far has no qualms with it if an American is in control of the strings. That's where China differs.

> The US so far has no qualms with it if an American is in control of the strings. That's where China differs

Legally, there is no issue with TikTok being Japanese, Korean, Indian, Saudi, Polish, Ugandan, Brazilian or Mexican. Just not owned by a foreign adversary country.

Yes, thank you. I've updated the earlier sentence from "foreign control" to "control by a foreign adversary". It's indeed the fact that China is a geopolitical enemy-to-be that's the problem.

But, they're also something like our third biggest trading partner. China is like a Schroedinger's Adversary: Simultaneously an adversary and a friend, until you ask a politician and the wave function collapses and he picks one.

> Simultaneously an adversary and a friend, until you ask a politician and the wave function collapses and he picks one

Which politician argues China is a friend?

We bought Soviet oil in the 1970s [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_...

Don't fool yourself or fall for the propaganda: China is hardly an adversary -- just look at how much money we send them and how many goods they send us. If they were truly an adversary we'd be treating them like we do Russia.

> If they were truly an adversary we'd be treating them like we do Russia

As you said, we trade with them extensively. We didn’t tighten the screws on Russia until it actually invaded Ukraine. Until Xi actually invades Taiwan, it’s profitable to pretend.

Chinese ships LITERALLY just cut 3 undersea cables in US allied countries to mess with us.

Oh maybe we should do something about that and actually treat them like an adversary.

Any country has mechanisms to ban products the government deems as bad. I think the point is those are much more liberally used in China vs in the US, not that the US would be unable to do it

1) A single party apparatus determines something must be removed, and by fiat it is immediately removed

2) Multiple agencies investigate and make a determination that a real threat exists, the threat and measures to resolve it are debated strongly in two houses of Congress between strongly opposing parties, an passes with bi-partisan support, the law is signed by the President, then the law is upheld through multiple challenges in multiple courts and panels of judges, finally being upheld by the Supreme Court of the country. And no, this is not yet a situation where the country has fallen into autocracy so the institutions have all been corrupted to serve the executive (I.e., not like Hungary, Venezuela, Russia, etc.).

If you think these are the same... I'll just be polite and say the ignorance expressed in that post is truly stunning and wherever you got your education has deeply failed — yikes.

America uses economic sanctions and bombs.

> algorithm used in the US was apparently banned in China

Sounds like they tried.

Frankly, I’m not sure what these comments even mean. Douyin (Chinese TikTok) has the same level of brainrot content, except with some restrictions (political and societal level stuff). Chinese kids are as much addicted to it as Western kids to TikTok/IG, from what I’ve seen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com