• TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, and Chinese companies have to do what they’re told by the ruling Chinese Community Party (CCP), if they’re told to do something. (And of course they’re not allowed to say they’ve been told do so something. In that respect, it’s the same as most Western companies being required to do something by intelligence agencies or the police.)
The facts are more blurry.
This from yesterday's FT
The company is often described by western politicians as a “Chinese” entity. However, as I have noted before, some 60 per cent of the group is actually owned by “international” investors, overwhelmingly American. An estimated $8bn has been invested by private capital companies, including Sequoia Capital, Susquehanna, General Atlantic and Coatue Management. Mainstream investment funds such as Fidelity, T Rowe Price and BlackRock are exposed, too.
And how much say do those investors have in what TikTok does? For comparison, how much say is it evident that the CCP has if you go on TikTok to point out the exploitation of Uighyurs, for example?
Wait, wait - Charles, you were around for "Net Neutrality" for example, and all the shenanigans that went on then. It's old hat by now to have companies running scare notices to their users about "Contact Congress, and tell them this proposal will cause the *ANTI-CHRIST APOCALYPSE*!!!". I doubt Congressional staff were puzzled. The FCC was really getting *death threats* sent about Net Neutrality, that's how crazy it got. High schoolers are absolutely bog-standard. And presumably much less disturbing than, e.g. adults upset over gun laws.
Note, I suspect that the House members learned at the national security briefing that the NSA could not get the sort of mass data access to TikTok that it can for Google, Amazon, X/Twitter, Meta/Facebook, etc. And this isn't an original thought by me. It's utterly obvious when one looks at the spying implications.
Note in the US, "motivating people to act politically" is a fully protected First Amendment business. Just like there's no "hate speech" exception, there's no "algorithm" exception.
This part:
The facts are simple:
• TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, and Chinese companies have to do what they’re told by the ruling Chinese Community Party (CCP), if they’re told to do something. (And of course they’re not allowed to say they’ve been told do so something. In that respect, it’s the same as most Western companies being required to do something by intelligence agencies or the police.)
The facts are more blurry.
This from yesterday's FT
The company is often described by western politicians as a “Chinese” entity. However, as I have noted before, some 60 per cent of the group is actually owned by “international” investors, overwhelmingly American. An estimated $8bn has been invested by private capital companies, including Sequoia Capital, Susquehanna, General Atlantic and Coatue Management. Mainstream investment funds such as Fidelity, T Rowe Price and BlackRock are exposed, too.
And how much say do those investors have in what TikTok does? For comparison, how much say is it evident that the CCP has if you go on TikTok to point out the exploitation of Uighyurs, for example?
I guess all governments try to impact social media (Texas stuff for example). But really it is not a fact that Bytedance is Chinese owned.
I have spent more than 30 years doing tech businesses, some in China and 1 with an explicit relationship to the Chinese Government - RealNames.
At no point have I ever seen the CCP play any explicit role in tech.
I'd be happy to talk about it.
My experience is that China is not some caricatured "evil empire" run by the CCP at the street level. The truth is far more nuanced.
The caricatures are mostly advanced by politicians for reasons related to their self-interest.
Honestly, the idea TikTok is a threat is a form of jingoism and to believe it requires the intellect to be turned off.
The facts are clear - there is actually zero evidence for the claim that TikTok is a threat. And even less for the idea ir is Chinese owned.
Wait, wait - Charles, you were around for "Net Neutrality" for example, and all the shenanigans that went on then. It's old hat by now to have companies running scare notices to their users about "Contact Congress, and tell them this proposal will cause the *ANTI-CHRIST APOCALYPSE*!!!". I doubt Congressional staff were puzzled. The FCC was really getting *death threats* sent about Net Neutrality, that's how crazy it got. High schoolers are absolutely bog-standard. And presumably much less disturbing than, e.g. adults upset over gun laws.
Note, I suspect that the House members learned at the national security briefing that the NSA could not get the sort of mass data access to TikTok that it can for Google, Amazon, X/Twitter, Meta/Facebook, etc. And this isn't an original thought by me. It's utterly obvious when one looks at the spying implications.
Note in the US, "motivating people to act politically" is a fully protected First Amendment business. Just like there's no "hate speech" exception, there's no "algorithm" exception.
Yes, but political activity by an unregistered foreign agent tends to make all sorts of people itchy.
The 'Future Ahead' video... I don't quite know what to make of it. Maybe thats a good sign.