TikTok owner ByteDance would prefer to shut down its loss-making app rather than sell it if the Chinese company exhausts all legal options to fight legislation to ban the platform from app stores in the U.S., four sources said.
I think the article speaks for itself. It says ByteDance definitely is a Chinese company and then goes on to explain the ways in which it isn’t, including majority ownership. If the US government has the power to kill the company, one might argue that it’s more an American one than Chinese.
The definition of a golden share is effective control. Tell me how that and the following is going “on to explain the ways in which it isn’t”.
ByteDance was founded in 2012 in Beijing by Zhang Yiming and Liang Rubo, who were college roommates at Tianjin’s Nankai University, according to company information and Zhang’s public speeches.
It has been based in the Chinese capital since then. In 2021, Zhang announced he would step down as CEO of ByteDance and handed the reins to Liang.
The US government has the power to kill Huawei if they wanted to; it’s their territory and they can do whatever the heck they want, of course. That doesn’t mean Huawei is US-owned.
The definition of a golden share is effective control.
That’s not nothing, but still not the be-all and end-all that you seem to want to make it.
The US government has the power to kill Huawei if they wanted to; it’s their territory and they can do whatever the heck they want, of course. That doesn’t mean Huawei is US-owned.
Huawei Technologies climbed back to the No 1 spot of China’s smartphone market in the initial two weeks of this year, according to a report by research firm Counterpoint, putting more pressure on 2023 industry leader Apple and major mainland rivals in the world’s largest handset market.
This marks the first time Huawei reclaimed the top smartphone sales ranking on the mainland since Washington imposed sanctions on the Shenzhen-based company when it was added to the US trade blacklist in May 2019, which crippled the firm’s once-lucrative handset business, according to the report on Sunday by Counterpoint research analysts Ivan Lam and Zhang Mengmeng.
That resurgence was jump-started by Huawei’s surprise release last August of its Mate 60 Pro 5G smartphone – powered by its advanced Kirin 9000S processor, which was locally developed in spite of US tech sanctions – as well as the firm’s Android replacement mobile platform HarmonyOS, the report said. It also pointed out that brand loyalty among Chinese consumers greatly contributed to the popularity of Huawei’s new 5G handsets.
I’m saying that they have the ability to ban any freaking thing in their territory. That Huawei is doing well outside of the US is irrelevant. If Huawei’s US division was forced down by the US, that is killing it, and they’re still not American.
That’s not nothing, but still not the be-all and end-all that you seem to want to make it.
Explain further how it isn’t a Chinese company despite its origin and its base of operations. Even if it isn’t, all that’s relevant is that China can influence TikTok into giving them their data for free today.
China can influence TikTok into giving them their data for free today.
Perhaps they could, but there’s no evidence that they as yet have. And of what use is your TikTok data to the Chinese state, anyway?
The US government doesn’t care about protecting your data. They care about accessing it themselves and controlling narratives on social media in order to shape public opinion.
Jacobin: Why the Twitter Files Are in Fact a Big DealOn the Left, there’s been a temptation to dismiss the revelations about Twitter’s internal censorship system that have emerged from the so-called Twitter Files project. But that would be a mistake: the news is important and the details are alarming.
Centralized and decentralized platforms share a common set of threats from motivated malicious users—and require a common set of investments to ensure trustworthy, user-focused outcomes.
Many discussions about social media governance and trust and safety are focused on a small number of centralized, corporate-owned platforms that currently dominate the social media landscape: Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and a handful of others. The emergence and growth in popularity of federated social media services, like Mastodon and Bluesky, introduces new opportunities, but also significant new risks and complications. This annex offers an assessment of the trust and safety (T&S) capabilities of federated platforms—with a particular focus on their ability to address collective security risks like coordinated manipulation and disinformation.
Trust and safety my ass. This is about manufacturing consent. They’re failing to control young American’s impression of and reaction to the Gaza genocide that’s being done in their name, so they’re pulling out all the stops now. Not the Onion but the NYT last week: Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe: A surveillance law referred to as Section 702 is needed to protect us from foreign threats.
For most people, “could” is enough to worry about. Just look at the people flocking whenever their app is bought by an advertising company.
(As for the NYT opinion, I’ll forward this comment: “Waxman worked under Bush as a senior national security advisor. So the administration that believes in torture is advising us that government surveillance is fine and keeps you safe? Not sure I trust the source.” My personal opinion is actually ambivalent towards surveillance, privacy, and safety.)
Whelp if corporate American media says that then it must be true 😆
Cite a better reasoning than what the article uses to arrive at that conclusion then.
I think the article speaks for itself. It says ByteDance definitely is a Chinese company and then goes on to explain the ways in which it isn’t, including majority ownership. If the US government has the power to kill the company, one might argue that it’s more an American one than Chinese.
The definition of a golden share is effective control. Tell me how that and the following is going “on to explain the ways in which it isn’t”.
The US government has the power to kill Huawei if they wanted to; it’s their territory and they can do whatever the heck they want, of course. That doesn’t mean Huawei is US-owned.
That’s not nothing, but still not the be-all and end-all that you seem to want to make it.
Is this a joke? The US government just tried and failed. Huawei reclaims top spot in China’s smartphone sales ranking, its first time back since company was added to US blacklist
I’m saying that they have the ability to ban any freaking thing in their territory. That Huawei is doing well outside of the US is irrelevant. If Huawei’s US division was forced down by the US, that is killing it, and they’re still not American.
Explain further how it isn’t a Chinese company despite its origin and its base of operations. Even if it isn’t, all that’s relevant is that China can influence TikTok into giving them their data for free today.
Perhaps they could, but there’s no evidence that they as yet have. And of what use is your TikTok data to the Chinese state, anyway?
The US government doesn’t care about protecting your data. They care about accessing it themselves and controlling narratives on social media in order to shape public opinion.
They’re after the fediverse now as well. Atlantic Council: Collective Security In a Federated World (PDF)
Trust and safety my ass. This is about manufacturing consent. They’re failing to control young American’s impression of and reaction to the Gaza genocide that’s being done in their name, so they’re pulling out all the stops now. Not the Onion but the NYT last week: Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe: A surveillance law referred to as Section 702 is needed to protect us from foreign threats.
For most people, “could” is enough to worry about. Just look at the people flocking whenever their app is bought by an advertising company.
(As for the NYT opinion, I’ll forward this comment: “Waxman worked under Bush as a senior national security advisor. So the administration that believes in torture is advising us that government surveillance is fine and keeps you safe? Not sure I trust the source.” My personal opinion is actually ambivalent towards surveillance, privacy, and safety.)