Senate passes law forcing ByteDance to sell off TikTok – or face a US ban The US Senate has passed a bill that compels TikTok's Chinese owner ByteDance to offload the app to a US-approved buyer or face a ban. President Biden has indicated he will sign it into law. The bill – formally known as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, or PFACAA as we call it – …
'TikTok' could vanish tomorrow and the world would carry on, while someone could sit down and code the next 'TikTok'.
In the end it's just a sad little social media app for people with nothing better to do with their time. Like me, sitting here stabbing this out on a pathetically small phone 'keyboard', as though my opinion is important.
Not entirely true. The strength of TikTok (and why it so rapidly forced all comparable apps off the market) is it's in built video editing tools, much of it locked down in (software) patents which makes it very easy for end users to make the videos they want (and also a large factor in why everything on TikTok is so exactly the same. They're all using the same sorts of defaults, the same music, the same settings. It's all so bland and blatant copy-paste).
If you wanted to bring back Vine, you'd have to find a way to incorporate those on-device/phone video editing tools and a way to circumvent the patents and the litigation that's undoubtedly going to follow. I barely used Vine but I remember it being pretty clunky on the back end.
while someone could sit down and code the next 'TikTok'.
Coding such an app is just 1-5% of getting there. You need infrastructure and staff to take care of traffic, illegal content, marketing and so on.
That means you also need a massive funding. It's not the 2000s anymore where anyone could launch a service from their basement and manage it.
If you release something like TikTok today, most likely competition will flood it with all sorts of illegal material and keep reporting you for hosting it until service provider kicks you out and you get in all sorts of trouble, that of course on top of DDoS attacks.
.. when will Microsoft, Adobe, Google, Microsoft (etc etc, it's a long list) be forced to sell chunks to European companies because they're spying on EU users? And that's actually not even hard to prove.
It's not that I have any love for China, Tiktok or any other mass software distraction, but the whole argument to force Tiktok to sell stinks of simply a desire to share in their profits or cull any non-US competition more than an actual interest in the safety of the US audience. It simply doesn't stack up logically, so I'm calling BS.
I really don't understand how forcing a company to sell part of it's operation really changes things.
Just because the "owner" is based in the host country does not change anything in terms of operation. They can still pretty much do what they want.
"The situation in practice isn't much different with US-owned companies ..."
But you fail to see the basic problem. China - bad, pseudo-democratic, spies on the rest of world and its own citizens. US - good, pseudo-democratic, spies on the rest of world and its own ... I guess my argument fails ...
As for the UK - like a good cat, we just work for whoever feeds those with noses in the trough, whichever autocracy they run.
no-no, you get it wrong. The US pinky promises with cherries on top that it won't do anything bad with the data it hoovers up from the rest of the word (while everyone can see they have their fingers crossed and hear the sarcastic tone in their voice). China makes no such promises.
But China can't really do anything with my data.
The US government can read out a list of my Facebook posts if I'm court on a jury.
Or if I'm not blessed to be a US citizen, the immigration officials can look through a list of my Twitter likes to make sure I support his preferred Shitgibbon for president
"The US government can read out a list of my Facebook posts if I'm court on a jury."
Maybe that doesn't worry you, but it should. They won't read out your farcebook posts verbatim. They'll summarize and leave out what they like to support the narrative they are going to present about you. It's just like the telemarketers that will ask innocuous questions such as "can you hear me ok?" so they have a recording of you saying "yes". BTW, never say "yes" on a phone call.
> It is now run by a limited liability company based in Los Angeles and Singapore but is essentially owned by ByteDance. While its founders own only 20% of ByteDance, it's the controlling stake in the company. About 60% is owned by institutional investors, including major US investment firms such as General Atlantic, Susquehanna and Sequoia Capital. The remaining 20% is owned by employees around the world. Three of its five board members are American.
Sauce: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-68681786
Grow up, do better or go home.
So if the owners of the controlling stake refuse to sell there will be some large institutional investors very angry with the US govt. if they actually go ahead and close it down. OK, they may also be very angry with the controlling stake owners but in practical terms it's US politicians who will be the butt of that anger. Then there are all the US voters or potential voters who use it and the content generators who make money from it, also many of whom will be US voters or potential voters.
Sir Humphrey would categorise this one as bold or even courageous.
> there will be some large institutional investors very angry with the US govt.
Some people (very smart people, the best people) might say that the reason for the switch to pro-TikTok stance by the former glorious leader of the USA might be connected to one of his billionaire funders being a bigger holder of Bytedance
"Then there are all the US voters or potential voters who use it and the content generators who make money from it, also many of whom will be US voters or potential voters."
How would one tell these days if elections are honest? What is very easy to be sure of is big donors and healthy bank account balances. The politicians are more concerned about campaign contributions and being able to outspend their opponents, hiring good spin doctors and image managers to make sure they win (again).
@SundogUK What planet are you on?
Do you know what an Executive Order is in the US? It'a a method by which the President can by-pass the usual oversight with any of the decisions that he makes to make something he wants to happen - happen quicker
Would you like to revisit your statement?
"It makes a difference when the owner is 100% controlled by the Chinese Communist Party."
100% correct here @SundogUK
America doesn't commit human rights violations or allows other countries to do it, they promote freedom, democracy, justice and the rule of law wherever they go - and they certainly don't indulge in nepotism
The US all the way! Hoorah Hoorah - does anyone have an American flag I can wave and a Bud I can drink?
"I really don't understand how forcing a company to sell part of it's operation really changes things.
Just because the "owner" is based in the host country does not change anything in terms of operation. They can still pretty much do what they want."
This is wrong - the current TikTok owners are CHINESE and as such are THE ENEMY.
If it was owned by an American company then being American everything they do would be legitimate and above the law.
I don't think the spying is really the big issue here. If it were, then I doubt it would have such support.
The big fear is the Chinese government having direct access to so many American viewers. Not much effort would be required to weaponize some propaganda and push it right in front of those eyeballs.
>Not much effort would be required to weaponize some propaganda and push it right in front of those eyeballs.
So sell it to Fox News (*)
* not legally news, for entertainment purposes only. Do not vote or operate heavy machinery after consuming Fox News. It is dangerous to exceed the stated dose
"The big fear is the Chinese government having direct access to so many American viewers. Not much effort would be required to weaponize some propaganda and push it right in front of those eyeballs."
This does seem to be the underlaying ‘concern’ shall we say!
As far as I know, TikTok is mostly used by younger people, probably not those in possession of state secrets. The fear appears to be that TikTok is (effectively) run by ByteDance, which is based in China and although a, theoretically independent company, the Chinese government can easily exert a degree of ‘behind the scenes’ direction - do this or something unpleasant might well happen to a member of your family.
Now this may or may not be a realistic proposition, but, playing devils advocate - could the CCP, manipulate what is seen on TikTok, in such a way to influence viewers to vote a certain way, to believe a certain thing, etc?
Probably not really, I would hope that the average American young person is a little more clued up. But maybe it only takes the ability to sway a small minority to make a big difference.
Anyhow, before the downvotes wade in, let me make it clear that I think this is unnecessary, does seem to be a case of ‘not invented here’ hence bad, and is very likely to be something which bites the next US administration very much in the backside! I am just trying to set what, what I think at least, is the logical justification for it.
None of those companies have board members appointed by the US government......ByteDance does. The US does not have a law compelling all companies and individuals to collaborate with state intelligence agencies......China does. If those two things happen in future to Microsoft, Adobe, Google, then it would be time for the EU to do something similar.
"None of those companies have board members appointed by the US government"
Maybe not directly, but lots of people in tech in the US have links to US intelligence agencies (Eric Schmidt and the CIA) and the tech companies have been extensively infiltrated a la revalations from Edward Snowden.
It's also interest that the US banned China from taking part in the ISS due to the Chinese space agency having links to the Chinese military.
Yet the USAF were able to field the X37B which looks remarkably like NASA's space shuttles, without having to go through testing, trials etc - I wonder how they managed to do that?
What you have to remember is - when you make the rules - you can also decide whether they apply to you or not too it seems
This post has been deleted by its author
Meh, China bans most western social media services because they're scared of their own population talking about forbidden topics.
A ban on Chinese owned IT services by western countries would at least be fair, even if it's more about the money than the data scraping...
I love this argument : China is bad because they do $SOMETHING while we're the good guys because we don't do that $SOMETHING. So let's do the same $SOMETHING as China, that'll teach them to be the bad-guys doing $SOMETHING. The exact same argument was used with the Iraq invasion : look, we're not as bad as Saddam Hussein who killed his own fellow Iraqi people, so let's go there and kill the Iraqi people, they should be happy about us killing them instead of Saddam Hussein killing them.
for SOMEONE in ['caananites','jews',phoenicians','anglo-saxons','vikings','jews again','catholics','french','spanish','french again','jews (default option)','commies','arabs','cubans','iraq/iran (think these are the same?)','venuzuela','china','blacks','hey have you forgotten us ? (jews)']:
. $SOMEONE is bad because $SOMEONE != us, they do [list of bad stuff we have blaming strangers for since the bronze age]
. Anything bad happening to us is because of bad $SOMEONE who are evil and powerful and work in secret ways but are of course pitiful weaklings compared to us
> China bans most western social media services because they're scared of their own population talking about forbidden topics.
No, they just don't want to have to deal with all the culture war bullshit you find on western social media. It makes for a happier populace.
>A ban on Chinese owned IT services by western countries would at least be fair, even if it's more about the money than the data scraping...
But what if the Eu decided that a ban on US owned social media sites spreading lies about eg. a referendum, means that they should have to divest their holdings in the Eu?
The EU usually only bans as a last resort. EU prefers to start with a very large fine, followed by an even larger one for repeat defenders, and it just gets bigger and bigger. By the time a company gets shown the exit door to the EU market will likely be departing quite a bit poorer.
Although Tiktok is probably mostly used by people not old enough to vote yet, i do think Biden has just given Trump a huge jump in the poles with younger voters once he begins to start blaming him for 'banning' Tiktok.
And the way they attach bills like this to funding for military aid for Ukraine, just shows how American democracy isn't all that great either. Its clear Bytedance didn't bribe, sorry 'lobby' enough politicians to stop this happening. Most of them must be on the Meta payroll instead.
Right.. As much as I detest TikTok, I think the Law of Unintended Consequences may apply here..
In 2026, everyone around the world will ONLY be able to use their respective state-controlled social media.
But it won't be for long.. In 2028, there will be no social media and nobody to use it, we'll all be tiny piles of ash.
Captain Darling : So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshall Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
General Melchett : Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war!
Captain Darling : And fortunately, one of our spies...
General Melchett : Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!
Yanis Varoufakis, the economist, raises a rationale for banning applications like TikToc -- or preferably handing them to a US company -- is that foreign applications of this nature undermine the all important inbound cashflow to the US that these companies create. This an interesting idea and actually puts a solid underlying foundation to these decisions. Its a bit abstract, though, so its presented to the 'rubes as something that's all important to "National Security".
As a citizen I find this sort of thing deeply offensive, though. I'm probably not the only one -- Its no coincidence that "270 days" puts the deadline after the November election (because it will be a Cold Day in Hell before I give my vote to a legislator that voted for this BS).
I dislike these short-attention-span specials. They're bad news, causing potential harm to millions. But that's not the point. My government is fine with pushing crap down the throats of the public provided its Good Ol' 'merkan Crap. The very legislators that push this ban are also using it for election communications.
It shows the intellectual bankruptcy of our nation. We're fine with employing hordes of people to push paper detailing what restrictions we're thinking up this week (invariably using imported technology in the process....) but the idea of a coherent industrial policy to maintain and enhance competitiveness --- no dice. Wall Street can't do investment, not enough short term RoI. The government's spending priorities are all over the map -- this giant package of our money going to Israel and Ukraine includes "a billion for Gaza relief". It shows just how whacked our priorities are -- homeless everywhere, people having trouble making ends meet......but got to feed the machine.....
.. I think it's becoming very obvious that this isn't down to China being a mortal enemy, but everything to do with the US maintaining a military, financial and technological lead over every other country on the Earth - and in this way they can continue being the ONLY super power in the world. I would advise everyone to not think that just because the UK is friendly with the US, we will be treated well in the new world.
Realistically the UK will be expected to dance to the US's tune on all things - "certainly sir - I'd love to buy chlorinated chicken from you"
I see that China has banned WhatsApp recently - Iet's see what the future brings
What do all of these companies have in common with TikTok? They’re all banned in China. No, you didn’t read that wrong, TikTok is banned in China.
YouTube
Wikipedia
Twitch
Tumblr
SoundCloud
Signal
Dropbox
Vimeo
New York Times
Washington Post
Wall Street Journal
Huffington Post
NBC
ChatGPT
DuckDuckGo
A rather simplistic view - there's actually a Chinese version of TikTok called Douyin - and before you say anything I know they're not the same - the clue should be they're named different ;)
Whether you agree with it or not, these apps are banned in China - this is mostly done on ideological grounds - whether you believe that to be because they don't want to be polluted by foreign ideas or to keep their population compiant etc that's their right - it's their country with their own laws and customs. If you don't like it, I suggest you raise an army or incite a country to get excited enough to start a war with China - but beware - they have nuclear weapons and given they've seen how other countries have faired under Western democracies like Iraq etc, they'd probably be more likely to fire first - I know I would if I was in that situation. However if you wish to make those apps available in China you can either ask nicely - or force them.
America also has the right to ban TikTok - but this is mostly nothing to do with ideological reasons and everything to do with maintaining a particular negative viewpoint against anything Chinese which seems to be prevalent at the moment from the West. The older I get and the more I see of the world, I'm convinced that humans are constantly looking for something to personify their angst against - we make our own problems up where none need exist.
... ByteDance forms a company "based" in a little house in Delaware (whatever that is), sells TikTok to them for one USDolar and RealAmericanCompanyHonest
re-issues the program as PikPok with absolutely no link to *anything* Chinese or Commie or Government.
Ten minutes of work for a junior partner in a minor law firm and the problem is solved.
Of course, they would also need to hire a web-page designer to add a re-direct to former-TikTok pages to bounce them to the equivalent PikPok ones.
But that's another ten minutes of work or so. Just do a global change of the name over all of their servers.
If they really want to comply more, they could also move their servers to Tuvalu or some other innocuous site but that would take more than ten minutes.
With 270 dys worth of warning, most of their users could easily change their bookmarks.
"re-issues the program as PikPok with absolutely no link to *anything* Chinese or Commie or Government."
It's just a new UI front end that pulls in TikTok data while rebranding what needs rebranding to appear as something totally different. The "new" company will make $100/year after paying fees to ByteDance to license their tech and data. But, the new company is NOT ByteDance, not at all and that would be rude to suggest.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
