this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

85297 readers
4070 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] WillySpreadum@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So be it. The vaccuum it will leave will get filled by another platform.

[–] xnx@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The whole point of this bill is for mark zuckerberg’s lobbying money to finally get people to use Reels

[–] Sgn@programming.dev -1 points 2 years ago

They didn't lobby this bill. Google, oracle, did

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

YouTube/IG are hardly starting from scratch.

But they don't have the international reach of TikTok.

[–] Buttons@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

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).