Hacker News Reader

Comment by SpicyLemonZest | Hacker News Reader

The CEO and cofounder has gone on record (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/05/tiktok-..., linking to a parent source https://chinamediaproject.org/2018/04/11/tech-shame-in-the-n...) pledging that he'd run the company in accordance with socialist values and the principles of Xi Jinping Thought. The degree of financial relationship is unknown and probably unknowable, but it seems clear that ByteDance feels obligated to behave how the government wants.

View on HN

Even if TikTok was openly promoting socialism - so what? The constitution doesn't split hairs about free speech. We're free to use speech to promote the political philosophy of our choosing in this country. The antidote to 'bad' speech, as per the constitution, is more speech, not to outlaw the speech you don't like.

There's nothing wrong with speech we don't like, unless (as in this case) it's made at the direction of a foreign government. There's long-standing precedent for preventing that kind of thing.

> There's nothing wrong with speech we don't like, unless (as in this case) it's made at the direction of a foreign government.

I mean, we don't ban China Daily. Also, and I'm going to have to check with someone who uses TikTok, but I don't think the Chinese government is giving orders to TikTok users about what to songs they're supposed to dance to on any given day.

> Also, and I'm going to have to check with someone who uses TikTok, but I don't think the Chinese government is giving orders to TikTok users about what to songs they're supposed to dance to on any given day.

They could, though. China is welcome to repeal those laws if they don't want the rest of the world to assume that they use them...

The government of China doesn't have a First Amendment right to free speech in the United States.

It's a huge relief that ByteDance is not the government of China. What level of foreign ownership makes a company purely foreign controlled? If funds controlled by Chinese nationals bought stakes in Facebook/Twitter/Alphabet, wouldn't that put them in the same category? What portion of ByteDance would have to be owned by non-Chinese people before it would be in the clear?

The premise of why a Chinese company(ies) should be singled out in this way is that China is a totalitarian state where people and corporations are subject to the absolute will of the Communist Party so "ByteDance is not the government of China" isn't going to convince anyone who believes this action is justified.

If Facebook/Twitter/Alphabet were to be acquired by Chinese interests that would almost certainly be blocked by CFIUS just like the potential Broadcom/Qualcomm acquisition was a couple years ago.

Should the US also ban foreign TV shows, music, books originated from totalitarian states? Because the producers are subject to the will of their governments and might be compelled into spreading propaganda although it has not happen?

I personally believe that freedom will prevail and this kind of race to the bottom towards censorship and executive branch unilateralism is sad.

Should it? No, I don't think so. But I do think restricting Xinhua or KCNA is different from restricting the BBC or Le Monde or whatever.

> What level of foreign ownership makes a company purely foreign controlled?

Whatever level allows them to dictate behavior.

> If funds controlled by Chinese nationals bought stakes in Facebook/Twitter/Alphabet, wouldn't that put them in the same category?

Of course.

> What portion of ByteDance would have to be owned by non-Chinese people before it would be in the clear?

Of far more significant is whether ByteDance's leadership are subject to Chinese jurisdiction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com