Could they please pull from Europe, too?
If the Chinese government is behind this, it’s a great play. Having Joe Biden be “the guy who banned tik tok” would severely undermine his election chances.
14 year olds don’t vote
Guess we’ll find out whether TikTok or reproductive freedom is more important…
TikTok or reproductive freedom
Both of those bans have happened during the Biden administration
Yes, we all know Biden was super excited about Dobs. -_-
14 year olds aren’t the only people who use Tik Tok
Lemmy really seems to generally think that TikTok isn’t massively overall popular. Lemmy would have someone thinking it’s a niche app only being used by teenagers.
They were 14 four years ago
Why would China want Biden to lose?
Because Trump is equivalent to self destruction.
Awesome, do META next please!
But how does that help capitalists make more money by eliminating their competition?
Never happen, why would the government shut down one of its favorite surveillance tools.
Before X?
X seems to be destroying itself without any external intervention lol
Elon Musk vs. Twitter, lol (timestamped)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/oK9oPk8bsvk?t=39s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
There will be a rush of US startups to replace it, and they will all be stage 1 enshittification, so they might actually be good for a while, like TikTok once was.
Or people will just migrate to the YouTube and Insta clones.
snapchats spotlight will do the best probably in terms of memes
Okay bye Felicia
Good 1 less spyware app
Google knew youtube shorts didn’t stand a chance in a fair market.
First, negotiations are not yet over, so they’re hoping courts overturn the ban.
Second, TikTok is very popular outside the US too, though 40% of ad revenue is in the US. They’d survive.
Even if they do plan to sell they wouldn’t say it. If buyers think that a sale is inevitable they can offer less because they “don’t have a choice” but to sell. If they act as if their plan is to pull out the buyers need to not just make them an offer that is higher than the others, but also high enough to make them reconsider their whole position.
This is right on. The best PR right now is to say they’ll never sell. Take a hard line while they challenge the law in court. They can always have acquisition meetings in private, and announce it out of nowhere at the last second if they do find a buyer.
It’s Vine time! What? Just… just bring it back. Call it “Kudzu” or some crap if Elon Musk owns the rights to Vine.
It’s fre
Free sha voc a doo.
I see this as a win win
Another example of the falling US influence.
Exactly. We spent four years playing into their hands, its going to take us decades to recover from that mistake.
Nah, they’ll sell. It would be foolish for them to admit it publicly, that would drive down the price. They’d also lose influence in the American media landscape if they killed TikTok. Finally, they’re fighting this law in the courts, and admitting they’d sell if forced too would be weakening their position. It’s not like selling would really hamper CCP control all that much, they’d just send texts to people’s personal phones when they need something instead of sending official emails.
If they said or implied anything else, they would lose all leverage. The public couldn’t care less about who owns tiktok, so they need people to think they’ll lose it to have any public support.
If money wasn’t the point, then influence was. Congress is right to shut them down.
Foreign owned, FARA-unregistered influence operations have never been a facet of “free speech” in the USA.
deleted by creator
Money is still the point. There’s an entire world outside the US.
It’s pretty weird that they’d admit it.
The smart move would have been to sell it and take the L, and use the new money to build the next thing.
They would say that at this stage. They are still working on getting the law overturned by courts and threat of shutdown mobilizes people against the law in a way that selling it wouldn’t.
When the time comes to shut down they will probably do some paper work fuckery that technically makes it an Irish company but doesn’t change the people in the company.
Call their bluff
they use the same algorithm across all of their companies so selling it would create a strong competitor and the chinese government is likely to block the sale anyways. tiktok revenue is a small slice of bytedance’s income, so it makes sense to swallow the relatively small loss to keep their product intact when it’s crystal clear that it’s far superior to anything else atm.
I love how the media has thrown around the word algorithm. They don’t need to sell their algorithm for a competitor to compete. An algorithm produces some result output. So you could easily clone an algorithm without knowing its exact implementation.
Maybe I know quicksort, but you know mergesort. The customer doesn’t give a fuck which algorithm was used, so long as it’s sorted.
This is a bad take. Yes, “algorithm” is a vague term, but it’s incorrect to suggest that they’re easily cloned. These algorithms are what makes social media companies. Without them, they wouldn’t have the same kind of user engagement. It’s why, outside of the fediverse, social media companies try to hide or demote linear timelines. It’s why they pour most of the R&D money into the recommendation algorithms.
But that’s not really an algorithm.
algorithm is a word employed here to help dumb down the concept of the IP that people will want to buy from tiktok; no one means a literal algorithm.
That was my original point. The media and hence business / management use this term (incorrectly)
They could just say IP, or platform, or service, or implementation. But I guess saying algorithm makes everyone sound smart.
It’s probably not a bluff. They’ve pretty much saturated the U.S. market; there’s not much room left to grow here. It would make more sense to focus their efforts on growing in other regions where they have plenty of headroom to increase their userbase and monetization. Depending on how things play out, they could match their current revenue in a matter of years and still have room left to grow. There’s also the potential to re-enter the U.S. market down the line. Why would they throw that all away and essentially create their own competitor by selling their core technology and diluting/confusing their brand with whatever U.S. company they sell to?
I’d think the fact they’ve saturated the US market is exactly why it’d be too valuable to give up. They’d lose a ton of revenue, tanking their valuation. They may be better off selling. From there they could prob just clone it and promote a competing service in those unclaimed markets using a portion of the extra sale price they get for maintaining (and selling a product with) US market dominance
