• Granixo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    Please, PLEASE, let this be the case.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think there’s a zero chance China would allow the sale. Imagine the precedent giving into such mob tactics would set. US could just go after any successful Chinese company doing business in US and demand that it’s sold off to American oligarchs.

      • Jeena@jemmy.jeena.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        Exactly, this asset is worth nothing to the CPP if sold.

        If it was a fully private company which is supposed to make money, they would sell it and move on to invest their money somewhere else.

        Regulating the market is important and is not done enough in the US, last time was decades ago with AT&T and Standard Oil. Today they should have broken up Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. To prevent monopolies but they don’t.

        But yeah, politically it’s much easier to go after a Chinese company.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Exactly, this asset is worth nothing to the CPP if sold.

          TikTok is worth approximately nothing to the CPC either way. It’s not like the Chinese state is hurting for money. They have a surplus of US dollars that they’re busy unloading, and they have fiat monetary sovereignty of their own currency. The app is banned in China, so nobody there is going to miss it. Who is invested in ByteDance that might care? American private equity: ByteDance’s US investors weigh options as bill to ban TikTok advances

          • Jeena@jemmy.jeena.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            7 months ago

            You’re missing my point that it’s not money the CCP is after but influence and power abroad. They already have absolute power at home.

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              specter This is silly. It’s an exaggeration to even call it a Chinese company.

              [Singaporean CEO Shou] Chew added that 60% of ByteDance is owned by global institutional investors such as the Carlyle Group, General Atlantic and Susquehanna International Group, while 20% of the firm is owned by Zhang and 20% owned by employees around the world. Three of the company’s five board members are Americans, he said.

              • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                ByteDance’s owners include investors outside of China (60%), its founders and Chinese investors (20%), and employees (20%).[35] In 2021, the state-owned China Internet Investment Fund purchased a 1% stake in ByteDance’s main Chinese subsidiary, Beijing ByteDance Technology (formerly Beijing Douyin Information Service), as a golden share investment[36][37][38] and seated Wu Shugang, a government official with a background in government propaganda, as one of the subsidiary’s board members.[39][40][41]
                —Wikipedia, check article for sources

                In business and finance, a golden share is a nominal share which is able to outvote all other shares in certain specified circumstances

                From the article you linked:

                Is ByteDance Chinese?

                Definitely.

                Does the Chinese government own or control ByteDance or TikTok?

                Chew has emphatically told Congress that ByteDance is not owned or controlled by the Chinese government.

                However, like most other Chinese companies, ByteDance is legally compelled to establish an in-house Communist Party committee composed of employees who are party members.

                Analysts have said the “golden shares” provide a way for the Chinese government to get more directly involved with the day-to-day businesses of tech companies, including in the content they provide to the public.

                Chew has admitted that the “golden share” exists. But he said it was for the purpose of internet licensing for the Chinese business.

                In 2018, China amended its National Intelligence Law, which requires any organization or citizen to support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence work.

                That means ByteDance is legally bound to help with gathering intelligence.

                In 2021, China introduced a new data security law, which applies to data processing activities conducted outside of the country that may “harm the national security or public interests.”

                There is also a cybersecurity law in China, which says the state will take measures to monitor, prevent and handle cybersecurity risks and threats “arising both within and outside the PRC’s territory.”

                These vague and broad laws apply to technology companies and may be used to regulate them.

                • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  17
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Is ByteDance Chinese?

                  Definitely.

                  shocked-pikachu

                  Whelp if corporate American media says that then it must be true 😆

                  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    Cite a better reasoning than what the article uses to arrive at that conclusion then.