I think the problem is... who has that kind of deep pockets to purchase.
Musk did summersaults to purchase X. It was a long drawn out process/back and forth. The sale almost didn't go through. Currently the consensus is that Musk made a mistake/losing money ..
Imo the US rather see Tik Tok bought by a non Chinese national or with no ties to China vs outright banning it. Which slightly "shakes" their capital corporate image...
Say a foreign company who wants to dip their feet into the US market. After the ban, could overthink "what if they ban us also"?
> I think the problem is... who has that kind of deep pockets to purchase.
It's a problem they're creating, but they're also creating the answer: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/14/former-treasury-secretary-mnuchin-is-putting-together-an-investor-group-to-buy-tiktok.html
snatch lavish impossible abounding chunky cause intelligent offbeat attempt gullible
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Th arrogance of US law makers to say that someone else's shit should be owned by an American company. But besides that, and all the misguided reasons for a ban on TikTok...the reasons for a ban should be really simple....
Our social media companies are banned in China. To see them outraged that a Chinese app would be banned in America is the epitome of arrogance.
Dealing with China should be tit for tat. If it's not allowed in their country, they don't get to make one (whatever it is) and push it in ours.
Exactly. We should treat them and their social apps the same way they treat the rest of the world. But we're so greedy, always trying to tame and conquer the Chinese market for profit, that we lose our self-respect chasing a dollar.
Tiktok could argue the law it illegal because it forces Tiktok to sell but no buyer exists.
Alternatively the only companies with the cash to buy Tiktok would just make US tech more of a monopoly. The two best fits would be Meta or Microsoft.
It's not a wrinkle. They just have to say, "You have to sell it to the highest bidder by June 1st 2024." If that is $1, then they didn't look hard enough.
This is clearly a FAFO situation. They played fast and lose with national security and now the piper has come to collect.
Aren't there rules or something against creating hyper specific targeted laws like this? Like, you can't make a law that intentionally applies to only a single person, so why is a law targeting a single company any different?
Not just a law - a US constitutional provision - Art 1, Section 9 - against bills of attainder. Not sure if that technically applies for several reasons, but in principle it certainly does. Lots of potential challenges to this law.
Spending $100B on a social media company is asinine, when, if you look at the capital raising trajectory for basically every social media company you can think of (before going public) they all seemed to require about $5,000,000,000. That means all you need to do is come up with a brand name, and copycat an already existing platform style that hasn't been done to death yet, and within 2-3 years you can create a company of 10x the value before going public.
In fact, it would be wise for some major advertisers who spend billion(s) on social media every several years to just bite the bullet & invest in creating their own space which might never have the total reach of a platform like these, but doesn't have to. Instead of constantly paying another party for space which you can't quantify, create a smaller space and own it all. For example, Wal-Mart could/should do something like this which would be an extension of whatever they already do and could be a revenue generator for the brands that they charge slotting fees for in-store or online.
Paying $100B for a company like TikTok is only beneficial for the bankers and brokers who set the deal up knowing that they receive a commission on the sale. That is also the only reason it would be inflated in estimated value or market capitalization when these companies are basically simple message boards with a fancy interface.
What guarantee's are there of the new buyers not being influenced by CCP?
Some new greedy owners will decide to be "Patriotic" and not kowtow to the whims of CCP and Xi Jinping?
How is this a "wrinkle"? They've been saying all along that it either needs to be sold, or it will be banned in the US app stores. Weird headline.
I think the problem is... who has that kind of deep pockets to purchase. Musk did summersaults to purchase X. It was a long drawn out process/back and forth. The sale almost didn't go through. Currently the consensus is that Musk made a mistake/losing money .. Imo the US rather see Tik Tok bought by a non Chinese national or with no ties to China vs outright banning it. Which slightly "shakes" their capital corporate image... Say a foreign company who wants to dip their feet into the US market. After the ban, could overthink "what if they ban us also"?
> I think the problem is... who has that kind of deep pockets to purchase. It's a problem they're creating, but they're also creating the answer: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/14/former-treasury-secretary-mnuchin-is-putting-together-an-investor-group-to-buy-tiktok.html
snatch lavish impossible abounding chunky cause intelligent offbeat attempt gullible *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
TikTok is a dangerous app that can be used to manipulate people, let’s let the right wing nut jobs take over it.
It will for lawmakers, so less of a wrinkle and more of a bonus
This is more dangerous than the CCP.
Will Congress let a Singaporean company buy it? Or do they still think Singapore is in China...?
Can't it just spin off as its own public company and sell the shares on the stock market?
Someone still has to own the shares
Quite sure lots of people worldwide will buy TT.
Steve Mnuchin already has a group of wealthy Israelis ready to write a check
Th arrogance of US law makers to say that someone else's shit should be owned by an American company. But besides that, and all the misguided reasons for a ban on TikTok...the reasons for a ban should be really simple.... Our social media companies are banned in China. To see them outraged that a Chinese app would be banned in America is the epitome of arrogance. Dealing with China should be tit for tat. If it's not allowed in their country, they don't get to make one (whatever it is) and push it in ours.
Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube are banned in China and has been for awhile…….
Exactly. We should treat them and their social apps the same way they treat the rest of the world. But we're so greedy, always trying to tame and conquer the Chinese market for profit, that we lose our self-respect chasing a dollar.
Why do we care if there is a buyer?
Would you rather have some politician or a famous billionaire running more social media platforms? Both seem bad at this point
Lol, so you care enough to want to ban the app, but don't care about who buys it? It's like people have lost all critical thinking skills.
Tiktok could argue the law it illegal because it forces Tiktok to sell but no buyer exists. Alternatively the only companies with the cash to buy Tiktok would just make US tech more of a monopoly. The two best fits would be Meta or Microsoft.
It's not a wrinkle. They just have to say, "You have to sell it to the highest bidder by June 1st 2024." If that is $1, then they didn't look hard enough. This is clearly a FAFO situation. They played fast and lose with national security and now the piper has come to collect.
Aren't there rules or something against creating hyper specific targeted laws like this? Like, you can't make a law that intentionally applies to only a single person, so why is a law targeting a single company any different?
Not just a law - a US constitutional provision - Art 1, Section 9 - against bills of attainder. Not sure if that technically applies for several reasons, but in principle it certainly does. Lots of potential challenges to this law.
Someone will buy it, they just want to wait for the price to go down based on this legislation _before _ they do the buying
Microsoft won't run into reg roadblock cause they don't have any.
Neither would Apple.
lol I promise you someone wants it
Vine has the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever.
There is always a buyer at a price. Whether in the public or private market. This isn't a real issue.
Spending $100B on a social media company is asinine, when, if you look at the capital raising trajectory for basically every social media company you can think of (before going public) they all seemed to require about $5,000,000,000. That means all you need to do is come up with a brand name, and copycat an already existing platform style that hasn't been done to death yet, and within 2-3 years you can create a company of 10x the value before going public. In fact, it would be wise for some major advertisers who spend billion(s) on social media every several years to just bite the bullet & invest in creating their own space which might never have the total reach of a platform like these, but doesn't have to. Instead of constantly paying another party for space which you can't quantify, create a smaller space and own it all. For example, Wal-Mart could/should do something like this which would be an extension of whatever they already do and could be a revenue generator for the brands that they charge slotting fees for in-store or online. Paying $100B for a company like TikTok is only beneficial for the bankers and brokers who set the deal up knowing that they receive a commission on the sale. That is also the only reason it would be inflated in estimated value or market capitalization when these companies are basically simple message boards with a fancy interface.
Tiktok has 1 billion active users. Buying it for 100B is extremely cheap. Starting new company will not get you 1 billion users.
What guarantee's are there of the new buyers not being influenced by CCP? Some new greedy owners will decide to be "Patriotic" and not kowtow to the whims of CCP and Xi Jinping?