Oh no! Anyway…
It’s going to be to their advantage to claim that they’re shutting down, even if they actually want that $50B buyout. If they say they’re going to sell, they’re going to lose what little leverage they have left. The public that wants TikTok will get TikTok, and the public is going to stop pestering politicians about it.
I read it as a bluff too.
They’re between a rock and a hard place, their best position is to play hardball and rile up their users.
Yeah, it means nothing to us to leave. We’re losing money!
If that were really the case why are they in the US at all? Because they know they can make money and their market position is strong.
Because China is trying to influence the US and they need to be in the US market for that
This is why the whole situation exists, IMO if there was a reason to believe China is trying to influence united states citizens, then this wouldn’t even be a discussion. There are probably hundreds of Chinese companies that operate in the US, why is tik tok signaled out? Because there’s probably a reason they’re being singled out. It might be nothing, but I’m inclined to think that the people who signed the bill know more than what they’re letting on for national security reasons.
Look at any security analysis done on it and you’ll see the insane amount of information it collects from every single user is absolutely stunning. They definitely use their influence and knowledge of individuals to drive opinion of those who use their platform.
There are probably hundreds of Chinese companies that operate in the US, why is tik tok signaled out?
Because it’s an enormous company with a lot of influence on people. If they actually influence people in that way, I don’t know but they could quite easily.
Personally I don’t care about TikTok.
Yeah I watched this dude show me a video of a device that opens jars and now I am thinking about becoming a spy for the Chinese government.
But they can’t continue to make money this way. It will be seen as control. So they’re stuck creating a competitor or just writing off the US market.
Yeah I think they’re angling for a reversal, if not they’ll sell and probably take some massive non voting share of the venture along with a bunch of billionaires.
They won’t sell lol, like why would they? If they truly are owned by the Chinese government why would they sell it to an American company?
The public [who] wants TikTok will get TikTok
In my family and peer group, the people who want to use tiktok and the people who could get and use a VPN to access a side-loaded tiktok app, has no intersect group. It’s just a bridge too far for all of them.
I’ll push them onto the fediverse yet.
Worst part about Lemmy being a tech heavy space is that so many users spout shit like “They’re not banning it, just deplatforming it” like yes, dipshit, that’s effectively a ban for something like 99% of people. You think 100,000,000 people are gonna fucking sideload the app? Love this place but it can be a bubble sometimes.
Deplatforming is equivalent to banning in basically every instance. The public town square doesn’t exist in the digital world we all operate in. Change my mind.
Situations like this are a good opportunity to increase the rate of tech literacy in a broader population or to promote decentralized solutions, but unfortunately that’s a pipe dream.
Fediverse TikTok = TikToot?
The public that wants TikTok will get TikTok, and the public is going to stop pestering politicians about it.
Has their user base mobilized at all? Maybe it’s just because I don’t use TikTok but I haven’t really heard much from their users about the ban. Which has been kind of unexpected.
Apparently TikTok sent out push notifications telling users to call their representatives. Minors were being provided instructions with their representatives’ phone numbers and contact info, but didn’t even know who they were calling and were asking basic questions like “What is Congress?”
Kind of shows the amount of power TikTok has over American youth.
I love how they demonstrated they aren’t influencing people by sending out a mass message telling people what to do. It doesn’t get any more comical than that.
Malign influence. Telling people to participate in democracy isn’t a bad thing.
Yes but telling an army of thirteen year olds doing dance videos to call representatives is worthless, if anything it hurts TikToks argument since it proves they’re doing the influencing of Americans that the government wants them not doing
So you’ve never used TikTok. Good to know.
You missed the entire point. They declared 1) We are not doing anything of that sort, then: 2) they did exactly things of that sort. It’s like a slap stick comedy show.
And facebook tells its users to vote. Encouraging people to make their voices heard and engage in the democratic process is a good thing.
I’d say absolutely, if Cambridge Analytica wasn’t a thing. I’d honestly rather have people not vote than be motivated to go vote because they think the liberal communists are putting fluoride in water to make frogs gay.
It’s somehow always the organizations and individuals who are trying to manipulate people that seem to care the most about people’s voices being heard in politics. Churches, social media, daytime TV, that crazy uncle you don’t like to talk to at family gatherings…
Hey some of us are the crazy cousin saying you should vote while also advocating pissing on the floor when your job tries to deny bathroom rights.
I’d prefer to have you as my cousin instead of the one I have who hates brown people and believes Trump won the 2020 election.
Only if ya can deal with ranting about how modern cars suck due to overuse of electronics and half crazed rants about guns and how we should bring back neighborhood militias.
“Vote to participate in democracy! Here’s some local voting resources”
vs
“Vote to protect our interests! Tell your representative that they are killing free speech if they don’t listen to me”
An enemy state giving kids a script of nonsense to harass politicians with is absolutely not a good thing.
Rival is better than enemy, but yes. We’re as friendly with China as we are enemies. It’s complicated, but I don’t want the simple version to be the narrative.
They’re not a rival. They’re a hostile power.
We are both dependent on each other because that’s how the global economy works, but we are not friends and there is no possible path to friendship unless one of our countries has an extremely bloody revolution and completely changes our mechanism of government.
Our core ideologies are not compatible.
You just haven’t been paying attention.
When you’re forced to participate in capitalism, your only option is to play the game. I agree, this is mostly just a bluff.
Why though? Why would they give up their trade secrets? They have a global market.
They could sell the user accounts and content and let another company clip that into their own recommendation algo.
I’ve been a part of a few tech acquisitions that have worked this way. They keep their secret sauce but hand over the community.
The question is if anyone would buy it without the algorithm and the other stuff worth money. Users by themselves aren’t very useful if everyone leaves after a day.
It would come down to price. I’m sure someone would pay for the content, accounts, and brand. But what dollar amount are we talking about when the algo isn’t on the table.
The algorithm either isn’t as valuable as they believe or the government’s concern is legitimate and we have a real problem.
Yeah that’s certainly possible. I just don’t think it will go the way people are thinking.
Makes sense from a business point of view. Why sell to create a new competitor with the same technology and an impregnable market base in the USA?
Better to force US competition to start from scratch.
I mean the sale agreement could require the buyer to never expand outside the US.
For money. Whoever buys it has to pay you for it. Shutting down just means leaving a gaping hole in American social media that some other company will fill and you’ll be in the same position but with less money.
YouTube/IG are hardly starting from scratch.
But they don’t have the international reach of TikTok.
Why don’t they just sell TikTok to a US Citizen who happens to believe TikTok should remain the same?
TikTok would remain exactly the same, with the exact same algorithms, but it would then be the free speech of a US Citizen so everyone would be happy. Maybe TikTok couldn’t send the data directly to China anymore, but they could certainly sell personal data on the shadowy data markets, just like every other US owned tech company does, and if that data happens to find its way to China then 🤷 .
Shell companies hide the true owner of companies all the time. Why can’t TikTok do the same?
The problem is they targeted TikTok specifically in the law and it will be easy to circumvent. “TikTok is banned, but check out this totally new website called TokTik with the exact same content but owned by a US Citizen”.
This is why they should have created regulations that apply to all companies. Because making regulations that depend on who owns the company will only cause TikTok to change the technicality of who owns the company. They can do so through all kinds of legal tricks without ever actually giving up control.
Why don’t they just sell TikTok to a US Citizen who happens to believe TikTok should remain the same?
They already did that. TikTok is incorporated in the Cayman Islands with headquarters in Los Angeles. The bill of attainder is post-that
Why don’t they just sell TikTok to a US Citizen who happens to believe TikTok should remain the same?
Who? What USA citizen is prepared to buy something for the privilege of fighting the USA government with would obviously get mad and probably block the sale if byte Dance TikTok is still involved.
I don’t really follow USA politics but didn’t this law pass by quite large margins? They could obviously ban toktik.
They can’t actually ban TikTok by name, it’s unconstitutional to make laws targeted at individuals.
The current law actually says “no company can operate in the US with over 20% owned by China, Iran, N. Korea, or Russia”, or something like that.
There’s a lot of people in the US and at least of few of them would be willing to run TikTok the same way, same algorithms, same content, and sell the users data on shadowy data markets (which China can surely get their hands on), etc. I’m repeating myself now.
Again, my point is there are a lot of people in the US and surely some of them can form a company willing to do what China wants, and isn’t that their right by our laws and morals of free speech? I know if things get heated enough laws and morals will be ignored (see Japanese internment camps).
And my even broader point is that this move against TikTok has ulterior motives. We should have created regulations that apply to all companies instead of targeting TikTok specifically. Even though we didn’t technically target TikTok specifically, we effectively did.
If you help TikTok in that way you would absolutely get on the government’s hit list (literal or not).
It would probably be quite easy to just make a new law or revision that stops the theoretical loophole.
deleted by creator
Not really, they would still be operating the same business in every other part of the world, except for the US. So you’d then have US Tiktok competing with World Tiktok. They can’t be forced to sell the global operations due to a mandate from some American court, no matter how much they think to be the world police.
deleted by creator
US tiktok won’t operate outside USA.
Says who?
deleted by creator
The sales agreement that you have read?
The law that they are trying to pass… they are not wrong either.
Do it.
TikTok’s daily active users in the U.S. is also just about 5% of ByteDance’s DAUs worldwide, said one of the sources.
So much drama in the US over this but it’s apparently merely a money-losing afterthought for its owner.
It’s almost like making money is not the primary purpose of this website 🤔
I’ve always wondered what would happen if ByteDance sells TikTok for $5 to a US Citizen who frequently visits China for lavish vacations, and that US Citizen decide to keep all the algorithms the same.
If China has an ulterior motive with TIkTok, can’t they just find a US Citizen to carry out their ulterior motive?
No. The bill is quite specific about that.
deleted by creator
Yeah same with Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, fox news, CNN, News max, Msnbc and every single other media outlet by that logic. Apparently any company not owned Merica is propaganda too.
This means absolutely nothing.
How much of their advertising revenue comes from the US. They have shopping, I’ll bet the US buys the most.
China already has livestream shopping, it’s still relatively novel in the US. Bytedance has to compete with other local competitors in China, hating a nice external source of revenue in the US fuelling these Chinese battle is a huge boon.
I know the article says loss making app, but I bet a lot of money goes back to R&D creating the loss. They pay massive sums to get merchants to sell on their app for example.
This means absolutely nothing. How much of their advertising revenue comes from the US.
To quote the article again, “The U.S. accounted for about 25% of TikTok overall revenues last year, said a separate source with direct knowledge.” Honestly, I think that makes the case for shutting it down even stronger. TikTok isn’t in some growth-at-all-costs phase in the US. It’s likely near its peak potential userbase. If they haven’t been able to make it profitable by now, that doesn’t bode well for it ever becoming significantly profitable. Absent the legal issues, they think it’s still worth at least trying, but as it stands, it’s just a lot of money in and, just as quickly, out, with nothing to show for it at the end of the day.
You’re assuming its a profit-focused endeavor rather than a propaganda arm of the Chinese government.
I think it’s a privately-owned, profit-focused endeavor that is nevertheless beholden to the Chinese government and which the government wants to take as much advantage of as possible. Deep down, I’m certain that their sole goal is to make as much money for themselves as they possibly can. If they also need to exfiltrate some data and send it to the CCP, that’s just a necessary business expense.
Bro, Facebook facilitated a genocide, and this is who we want to buy TikTok? What action was taken against fb?
“US coRpOrAtiOn goOd!”
Not US corporation good, just US corporation = US controlled. This isn’t a morality play, it’s a national security play.
If TikTok’s purpose is to spread Chinese propaganda, can’t they just find a US Citizen that can run the website for them?
“Yeah, it’s my personal website where I exercise my 1st Amendment rights, also it has 100 million daily users and I happen to agree with China on a lot of things.” If a US Citizen were to say this, there would be nothing illegal about it I think?
Well China is refusing to divest, i.e. sell it to a US owner so clearly that’s not an option for them. If it was about the money they would have.
We are talking about the same country right? The US committed the fucking Tuskegee experiments, MK ultra, and more recently Gitmo as a whole. If some dumbfuck wants to be a Chinese puppet I wouldnt put it past the feds to off em, shame they commited suicide by shooting themself in the back of the head twelve times with a shotgun.
Okay, but I’m more interested in intra-legal reasons this couldn’t be done.
I’m sure they could find 2, 3, or 3000 US Citizens who are willing to sell out to China, and then TikTok would be owned by US Citizens, but would still be doing what China wants.
I was moreso pointing out the obvious and quick solution. On a more legal situation, I suspect that said individual could be taken down as a foreign agent, most of the laws around that shit from the cold war are still on the books. The fact of the matter is youre are coming at this from the perspective that we dont have laws around what foreign agents are allowed to do, Americans can certainly be foreign agents just ask my 2x great grandfather who was snitching on the Bund who were almost all American born.
5% of customers driving 25% of revenue is a market you want to invest in.
Amazon wasn’t profitable for how many years? It’s the exact same play. Take a loss to create something artificially desirable, strangle the competition and lock up your walled garden, then crank the prices.
I’ve talked with merchants TikTok Shop recruited, TikTok was paying them a ton to sell there, eating their processing fees, their shipping costs, and paying for massive discounts to customers so they could juice their metrics.
They’re starting to crank up their fees this spring and summer.
Same with advertising, advertisers want to go to TikTok, but I’m sure most of the actual spend is happening outside the app on influencers. TikTok wants that pie too.
Taking a loss means nothing in this context
Also, hard to quantify how much of the popularity of tiktok is driven by US content globally, versus locally. You lose all that UGC is you cut out US
“Livestream shopping” is that like QVC or something?
Yeah, kinda
You watch TikTok, someone shills a product, you buu it with a button that pops up, or you click into their store to buy their cosmetics line.
Looks like they’re saying it’s running at a loss and is valued at $50b, so that Musk would end up buying it off their hands.
If they want Musks attention they should have valued it at $69b
If ByteDance is a normal company they will seek profits and sell for as much as they can.
But if TikTok is a Chinese psyop, they’ll just use any of the many legal tricks we allow to change the “owner” while China still retains control. Companies do this all the time, look at shell companies and such. It’s super easy for China to mask the true owner if they decide to.
This is why we should make broadly applicable regulations instead of picking on one specific company.
If ByteDance is a normal company they will seek profits and sell for as much as they can.
If the sale is forced, the value of the property will be depressed. Why would they take pennies on the dollar to liquidate IP rather than fight it out in court and try to get the provision overturned?
This is why we should make broadly applicable regulations instead of picking on one specific company.
The law is not specific to TikTok. It is any company owned by a subsidiary of an “enemy” state, of which China is listed as such.
And selling the company to a non-Chinese holding company wouldn’t work, because the dispute is over Chinese IP law affecting how ByteDance does business. Move the company overseas and it would no longer be covered by the IP provisions (something the Chinese investors don’t want, because they benefit from the IP provisions).
deleted by creator
Why would the forced sale of a product have an impact on the value?
I have a shelf full of cupcakes. They each cost me $1 to make. I would like to generate a 20% profit, so I sell them for $1.20/ea.
Then the government passes the “UnderpantsWeevil Can’t Sell Cupcakes In the US Act of 2024”, effective in one minute. A financial tycoon from American Cupcake Corp comes by my shop and says “I’ll pay you $.10 for those cupcakes, which will be worthless to you in the next 59 seconds.” He intended to buy them from me and sell them at his store, across the street, for $1.30/ea.
He’s not under any time constraint, but I am. So if I can’t move the balance of my cupcakes in a minute, they become worthless to me.
Logically, I should sell any cupcakes I can’t move off the shelf in a minute to American Cupcake Corp, even at this depressed asking price.
If anything, the fact that it’s being forced to “sell” should make the existing social media companies froth at the mouth.
Why would any social media company bid the real value of the property when the real value falls to zero in nine months?
And - let us assume, hypothetically, that these American tech companies have a history of operating as a cartel - why would they not coordinate their bids to guarantee the smallest possible auction price?
I’m not an economist but that makes sense to me.
What about a modified scenario:
A small island has three cupcake makers operating out of their homes: Meta, Alphabet, and Bytedance. Each has captured a section of the island’s market with cupcakes and at this point, there’s no real opportunity for growth. Meta can’t convince Bytedance’s customers to switch because they prefer other flavors. Meta would need to purchase one of the other cupcake companies in order to expand.
None of the cupcake makers are interested in selling their companies. They consider themselves elite and their successes feed into the CEO and shareholder perceptions of value and success.
Now, we consider that one of the cupcake companies is funded by a rich uncle from a different country. The island’s elders decide that the uncle’s influence is too great and orders Bytedance to sell its cupcake company or leave the island.
We’ve established earlier that people who like Bytedance cupcakes don’t necessarily want to eat Meta or Alphabet cupcakes, so if they leave the market, those customers may be gone for good. They may have a change of heart and decide that cupcakes of any flavor are fine, but they may also be angry that the government forced their favorite place out of business. In any case, Meta and Alphabet cannot rely capturing this segment of the market to grow.
Faced with the dilemma of possibly gaining customers organically or definitely gaining customers by purchasing their preferred product brand, I’d argue that the remaining companies may jump on the opportunity to purchase Bytedance before they are forced out. None of the cupcake companies were up for sale in a traditional sense before, so this was never a realistic path to achieve growth.
Why would any social media company bid the real value of the property when the real value falls to zero in nine months?
I could see Google buying the brand even without the secret algorithm, and now the next app update will start showing YouTube Shorts. Or maybe they would just start showing “tiktoks” in the YouTube app, with no mention of yt shorts.
Meta seems like a possible choice too. Hell, maybe Elon Musk will waste billions of dollars ruining it and throwing away an extremely popular brand.
I could see Google buying the brand even without the secret algorithm
Not at the company’s pre-law market cap
He’s not under any time constraint
Remind me not to eat at your house.
Does selling from one hand to the other actually matter when it comes to value? If I own a company and sell it to myself via a shell corporation have I actually lost anything, except a tax write off?
I take no stance on the psyop thing but is always selling the best way to seek profits. I say no. Unless they can sell and somehow force the buyer to operate exclusively in the USA. If not then there is still the rest of the world to profit from and selling their entire USA branch would suddenly create a new huge competitor.
Then Weibo and WeChat will geoblock US in response to TikTok ban.
So was google an American psyop for pulling out of China instead of submitting to censorship?
Tiktok is used globally. Only American politicians seem concerned about the platform why would bytedance sell it when they can just continue operating in 180 other countries around the world?
It’s not available in China though interestingly
True story, Tiktok has never been available in mainland China.
https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-bytedance-ban-china-india-376f32d78861e14e65ec4bc78e808a0d
In mainland China it’s called Douyin, exactly the same app, same company, not the same content of course. It’s separate because Beijing wants a tighter control on social media in mainland China.
deleted by creator
Actually many governments are concerned about it. But only the US (so far) had pulled the nuclear option.
I feel like they’re threatening a shutdown in the hopes of getting them to reverse their decision because if they just quietly go along with it, other countries will likely quickly follow suit in short order.
The reality is that the lifespan of “most popular social media app” is incredibly short. In the space of a few short years, we’ve gone from MySpace to Facebook to twitter to vine to Snapchat and now to tiktok.
TikTok will soon enough be replaced by “the next cool thing” and BD knows that if they sell in the US, that new entity will quickly replace them globally because the US effectively IS the influencer market.
Viewers go where the content is, and that’s still overwhelmingly American (for better or worse). There is no successful social media app without including the US and BD knows it.
EU next please
Don’t use it if you don’t like it, but don’t give this bullshit Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda control of something just because you don’t like it.
It’s just as bad or good as any other algorithm based content app like Facebook or Instagram. If we have a problem with privacy for example then go after that like with gdpr.
I think you have it backwards, in that it’s the US that’s trying to stop all the Chinese propaganda coming from that app.
And if TT pull out of the US, it’s pretty telling that their core drive for that thing wasn’t money.
Why would a tech company sell their product to another competitor in such a big landscape like US? It’s quite very much because of money.
Well for one, because if they don’t then they will get precisely 0 money. If it is indeed about the money then we would absolutely expect them to sell no? Otherwise… There’s no money
0 money from us market. They still have a big market outside US. Why would they sabotage it by giving an advantage to a competitor. No money is better than negative money.
While they would no longer be competing in the US market, any ‘competitor’ would have to do the work of gaining billions of customers in other countries, that are already entrenched into Tik Tok user space. I think that worry is kinda moot if you’re TT leadership.
If France passes a law requiring Google to sell Google France to a French company, would Google pulling out instead of selling mean their core drive in France wasn’t money?
Google is an American company. Apples and Oranges.
I don’t think it’s primarily about the algorithm or “Public Enlightenment and Propaganda” but instead about data and company ownership. Currently the US and EU are far closer allies with each other than with china. Services that are owned/controlled by their countries are therefore prioritized, and competing services from non-ally countries are way more scrutinized.
We already sanction TV stations because of their propaganda content e.g. Russia Today. I see this as no different.
Then the EU would need some evidence of propaganda.
I dislike TikTok but should you really be banning platforms you don’t like?
Sanction them if they misbehave, yes. Prevent most of the population from communicating using it? Absolutely not.
Americans have weird priorities when it comes to freedom. The mental gymnastics I’ve been seeing trying to justify a ban of a platform to a massive population of people is nuts.
No, it isn’t “actually upholding” freedom of speech to ban TikTok.
I don’t think most Americans want tiktok banned . Unfortunately the US government just does what ever they want and right now there is too much pro Palestine information on tiktok .
should you really be banning platforms you don’t like?
Yes, but only if that platform is Twitter
lol you think “freedom of speech” includes foreign adversary right to harvest American citizen data?
Exactly. I only want my data to be harvested by the NSA. It feels more patriotic.
but chyna bad duh
So be it. The vaccuum it will leave will get filled by another platform.
This the goal of this bill.
That’s fine, but I think they are lying.
And in case you don’t understand, foreign corporations running FARA-unregistered influence operations isn’t considered a facet of “free speech” in the USA.
Okay great. Prove it in court.
There’s no legal case to be had.
The constitution grants congress effectively unlimited power to regulate international trade. Citizens have rights. Foreign actors do not.
That hasn’t been true for 70 years.
Don’t threaten us with a good time!
This seems to be a pattern. Govts flex over tech companies, techs blackout a country instead of complying, repeat.
That happens when the government doesn’t create the technology LIKE IN COUNTLESS CIVILIZATION SIMULATORS
Good. Please proceed as quickly as possible.
Good, that’ll decrease the amount of stupidity in the platform for the international audiences to enjoy
I’m curious, is there an actual plan to ban TikTok? How do they think they can accomplish that? And just how easy will it be to circumvent the ban?
Having read through the bill, here’s how it works:
- TikTok/ByteDance is mentioned specifically in the bill, so they have 270 days (iirc) to divest of “adversary country” influence (meaning China, Iran, Russia, N. Korea), meaning they’d have to be sold to a company based in a non-adversary country
- assuming they don’t comply with 1, any app store
or ISP*hosting provider* would be fined if they continue to preserve access to the app - users can still use the app, but they have have network access blocked while in the US - so you’d have to use a VPN to use the app
So to circumvent it, basically use a VPN to use the app, and for updates, you’d probably need to side-load on Android or something similar. I don’t know how Apple’s store works well enough to know what options users have to install and update the app after the ban.
That said, there is no provision for making it illegal to use the app, the onus is entirely on companies facilitating access to the app.
Edit: I was wrong about the ISP. After a reread, it’s talking about server hosting. So a server cannot be hosted in the US, nor can a server in the US distribute copies of the app, or host source code for the app.
“Controlled by a foreign adversary” and “foreign adversary country” are the key phrases. The definitions are here.
It refers to United States Code title 10 section 4872(d)(2), which says:
Covered nation .— The term “covered nation” means— (A) the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea; (B) the People’s Republic of China; (C) the Russian Federation; and (D) the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I think those phrases are important when discussing any potential “slippery slope” aspects of this bill. It’s about companies/applications from specific adversary nations. It’s not about just any service that annoys a US politician. The bar here is much higher, and the scope is narrow. While it does identify ByteDance and TikTok by name, it will also apply to other companies from those nations, if they are determined to present a threat to US national security.
I haven’t read the entire bill, so please don’t take this as advice, but in principle, I think it seems like a sensible measure. A major communication platform like TikTok makes a very effective propaganda and misinformation tool. Exactly the sort of thing that an adversary nation would use to sway political discourse, influence elections, even undermine a democracy.
Of course, any law can be abused, so paying attention to how this one is applied and enforced will be important, just as with any other.
While true, it also includes any US (or other county) company that is owned at least 20% by someone in one of those adversary countries.
The President can’t just name any country an “adversary country,” but it’s not just companies in those countries either. So something like Epic Games could qualify since TenCent (owned by a Chinese national) owns >20% stake.
However, the law also restricts how a company or product is subject to the rule. Basically, unless they are TikTok or ByteDance (or directly affiliated with either in a legal sense), the President must:
- Publicly notify Congress of the intent to classify them as an adversary company (assuming they meet the rest of the rules) at least 30 days prior to any further action
- Notify the public of the change
Then the company has 90 days to appeal before the statute of limitations is up, and 270 days to comply (i.e. divest from the adversary country).
So the bill is pretty decent in preventing abuse, so I’m more worried about the precedent it’s setting. We generally don’t ban things here in the US, so this is a pretty big step IMO.
This is a good oppertunity to teach young people about tech
