- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.world
A win is a win
What’s the win here? For Facebook and cable news? Because it looks like another example of the American government strong all over the 1st amendment rights of its citizens because they don’t like what they’re taking about
The main win is banning a content recommendation algorithm that is influenced by the CCP. A secondary win is reducing consumption of short form content. A tertiary win is eliminating that God awful narrator voice.
There’s no valid 1st amendment argument here. This doesn’t ban American voices, that can continue to be shared on alternative platforms, it bans the CCP Government’s propaganda inserting itself in American media consumption.
Isnt that pretty damn suspicious? We’d rather just shut down than sell it as a going concern?
No?
The way you are speaking it’s as if they mean to close down the whole thing. There is a whole rest of the world for them to operate in. Sure losing the US market would be a huge detriment, but the owners still might rather have it everywhere else, than keep it running in the US in someone else’s hands.
They aren’t being forced to sell their operations in the entire world, just the US. So, doesn’t it make better financial sense, if all legal options to keep control fail, that they sell their US operation to another company, and at least get billions of dollars before exit, than to just lose the market and get not billions?
They don’t want to seed a competitor with their tech.
They are going to get one when a western tech company copies them to fill the vacuum they left. Their only real advantage is their leg-up with their earlier footing. There is nothing particularly interesting in their software, it’s easy to copy, and someone likely will. If they do not get a copycat, their crowd will move on to some other thing and, being in the same industry, will still be a competitor.
They are going to get one when a western tech company copies them to fill the vacuum they left.
When? Instagram/Facebook Reels are already a blatant copy. And YouTube Shorts is trying.
They don’t want to compete with tiktok, they want them gone so they win without trying to make their own service better, which they could do, but they don’t want to change what likely ends up being a more lucrative algorithm for them if they aren’t dealing with competition. You know, American free market economics 🙄
A thing never mentioned in these debates is that noone in the world is buying tiktok without buying the underlying algorithm, the same algorithm the app runs on worldwide, the algorithm is the special sauce. They are not going to sell the basis for their app just for a single payday in the US market, which after buying it, they could rebrand and then once successful in the US, compete in the global market against tiktok but with the income of the most lucrative app market in the world behind them. It’s an extremely stupid business move.
But what if the US version becomes a different version than the rest of the world’s? What if the rest of the world wants that version and demands it?
They have a leg up, they would have to use their early footing to compete. If they go, the vacuum of their loss of presence will open a spot for an american tech company to copy them. Either way, they are going to get competition from an american tech company. Nothing they are doing is esoteric in a way that would make them hard to copy. There really is no secret sauce, so to speak, in the software. If they are doing it to hide something then then it lends credence to the US’s accusations, at least it leaves a grey area for that speculation. This gives the US a big avenue to push that they are right and everyone should be cautious of their media business.
Then they change it to match.
How does that work? 1 app 2 companies. Who will follow whom?
It’s obviously pretty valuable. How would we feel if say, China decided Microsoft/Google/AWS/Oracle had to sell to a Chinese company on the grounds of national security? They’d rather pull out too, despite China being a very large market too. Or what happens if other countries starts demanding the same?
Pretty sure ByteDance would rather keep their IP.
And if they sell, do they keep the rights for the other countries or it belongs to the US now?
Except that is what China already does. Cloud providers with regions in China have to utilize a local partner company which gives access to the whole tech stack. It’s a reason that AWS China regions were always so far behind in service offerings to the rest of the AWS regions.
How would we feel if say, China decided Microsoft/Google/AWS/Oracle had to sell to a Chinese company on the grounds of national security?
But no one is saying that ByteDance has to sell TikTok to a US company. Just divest it to an owner that is not beholden to the Chinese government and obligated to share any and all data upon request. Compared to the legal requirements that China puts on US companies operating in China, this is a pretty tame ask.
Yeah but the 5 Eyes and their friends are everywhere outside of the CCPs borders. So if they really don’t want to let the US have that algorithm, and probe the interfaces the CCP propaganda arm used to access the TikTok backend, there’s few places overall that have a reason to buy it, and can also afford it.
AWS already had to effectively do this. AWS only exists in two regions in China because they licensed much of the AWS software to be run by a pair of Chinese-government affiliated ISPs inside China (that is, Amazon doesn’t run AWS in either of its China zones — it’s run by a pair of Chinese companies who license AWS’s software).
This is why the China AWS regions are often quite far behind in terms of functionality from every other region (they either haven’t licensed all the functionality, they don’t keep up-to-date at the same cadence as Amazon, or Amazon is holding certain functions back), and why you can’t really access them from the standard AWS console.
So in effect, Amazon did have to give their software to Chinese-government affiliated companies in order to continue operating in China.