As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning.
What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing.
If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?
Most countries have significant rules and regulations around foreign-owned corporations. Countries generally think it's important to their national security to prevent widespread foreign ownership of internal resources. But there is a trade-off where you make reciprocal deals with trusted foreign trade partners to facilitate trade and growth. Everything works smoothly when everyone plays by the same rules.
China has some of the most draconian restrictions on foreign ownership anywhere yet still gets access to foreign markets. Major US corporations are often forced to set up Chinese-majority-owned subsidiaries to operate in China and must cede huge amounts of control to the Chinese government. Time after time, this results in locals ripping off the technology of the foreign company and then the foreign company being replaced by a local company. Look at the long history of US tech startups failing in China.
The point is that whether you think this specific action is right or wrong, it's totally normal tit-for-tat geopolitics. Countries impose tons of restrictions on foreign-owned corporations. You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign.
> You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign.
This is your idea of doing something simple? You can set up other kinds of corporation like LLC at least. Are other countries less restrictive? Seems like kind of a messy legal situation either way.
In Mexico it's really hard to buy property as a foreigner. It used to be you could not own coastal property at all, not sure if still true.
I think you missed my point. I don't really care whether this is the right move or not, and to be honest I don't really know.
But I care that some president can simply say "Hey specific corporation, you have 45 days to comply with the rules that are in my head."
> You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign.
Sure, that is a rule in the law, no problem with that. But what if I'm friends with Trump and he makes an exception just for me?
Here in Europe, we have separation of law, government and religion. I know it's a bit more blurry in the states (see the "In god we trust"). In this case (and in some other cases such as pardoning prisoners), your government seems to interfere with your law. In my opinion, that becomes very tricky business if you start eroding those rules. Because when you're friends with the government, the law doesn't apply to you. And if you're enemy with the government, forget about your rights.
> Religion has nothing to do with it, besides indicating a familiarity with US politics being mistaken as understanding.
It was just another example how US blurs things that should be separated. In most European countries this would be a big NO for government to express a certain religion. You have it literally printed on your money.
Reddit block quotes don’t work on HN, try asterisks.
This once again has very little to do with the situation at hand though I’m afraid, if you’d like more information as to why a president can seemingly tell a specific corporation what to do on a whim, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen...
I think it's reasonable to say that the modern trend of expansive executive power going unchecked is comparable to the mixing of religion in American politics.
In both instances they're the result of the Constitution being so old and sacrosanct that you can no longer amend it in a meaningful way. You simply change the norms, stack the courts, and you've knocked out the leg of the stool that was supposed to uphold these ideals. A modern president moving around money allocated by Congress flies in the face of the Constitution. Same with an immigration ban based on religion. But the game has changed to "us v them", and if you get enough of your team in the judiciary they'll sign off whatever you want.
That’s an interesting take and far more reasonable than pointing to words on currency and the concept of a pardon, it goes down especially well with the “American Religion” inherent in the near worship of the founding fathers and biblical constitution too!
I support it because of "the China thing". Not because I think China is inherently bad (I am capable of separating China from the CCP) but as long as the CCP enforces heir draconian laws that don't permit foreign companies free access to the Chinese market I think this should be reciprocated. Any other response is reckless.
>I support it because of "the China thing". Not because I think China is inherently bad (I am capable of separating China from the CCP) but as long as the CCP enforces heir draconian laws that don't permit foreign companies free access to the Chinese market I think this should be reciprocated. Any other response is reckles
If this is the case, why are they forcing them to sell specifically to a US company rather than any non-Chinese company with less draconian laws (EU, etc).
I mean if that's the case, why not simply make laws to limit foreign companies access to the US market. As far as I know, the US hasn't actually passed any laws, right?
You missed my point: If this is your view, why does a president need to pick on 1 specific company? Why not make it a rule that applies to all companies?
Why it should probably be the President initially is a much longer answer, but as far as only targeting specific businesses the answer boils down to not every Chinese businesses being viewed as a problem. If you only view certain companies or industries as strategically significant at the moment then why would you want to ban the rest? That just drives prices for imported goods higher while accomplishing nothing of value.
The emperor isn't deciding this. The president is using authority which is granted to him by law. In this case a law which includes a means for Congress to overrule his decision if it wishes.
It's easy to forget that China is still a developing nation (~$10k gdp/capita) and protectionist policy is designed to allow developing nations to strengthen domestic industries.
If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them.
To build self-sustaining growth, a country must establish the positive feedback loop of consuming its own goods.
Have you perhaps heard of "reform and opening up"? It started being a thing in the 1970s and every Chinese government since then has opened up more and more, because that's how they're getting rich.
The latest big move in that direction was the new Foreign Investment Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_... that went into effect this year, which introduced a bunch of big changes, such as switching from the previous system of "everything is off-limits to foreign investment unless explicitly allowed" to "everything is open to foreign investment unless explicitly forbidden". That list of restrictions http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/wzs/202006/20200624143734575.pdf already includes provisions for further opening in the future, such as removing the last restrictions on manufacturing passenger cars by 2022. (Special-purpose vehicles, electric cars and commercial vehicles are already exempt.)
If that doesn't demonstrate "intention of opening up", I don't know what would.
The only thing about China that hasn't changed seems to be Western commentators' knowledge of it.
>If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them.
I feel like if you were to replace China with Europe your statement would still apply for the software sector.
I'm not defending it, but there is a legal basis. CFIUS[1] laws give the president authority to close down foreign businesses under certain circumstances. (This is not to say "it's completely legal" - there are a bunch of ways this could be challenged).
As much as the US government would like people to believe otherwise, things like laws goes out the window pretty quickly when it comes to geopolitics. This isn't a new thing in the US either. Maybe just more people are realizing it recently.
I am neither a US Citizen or a resident BUT this is not only about "geopolitics" but more about National Security too. There's literally a law in China which states you have to provide "crucial information for review" to the government if asked. You(the firm operating in China) cant deny that. Period. That itself is scary, regardless of whether or not politics / geopolitics is involved.
> Regarding the requirements for spot-checks and certifications, international law firms have warned that companies could be asked to provide source code, encryption, or other crucial information for review by the authorities, increasing the risk of this information being lost, passed on to local competitors, or used by the authorities themselves.
This is not about national security. This is economic retaliation in a long brewing cold war over influence and power, backed by lobbyists who do not like being left out in the cold due to China's protectionist policies.
Call it what it is and I would be surprised if more people didn't support it. But it is becoming far too common for many aspects of politics that are driven by profit or control hiding behind the guise of national security.
> There's literally a law in China which states you have to provide "crucial information for review" to the government if asked. You(the firm operating in China) cant deny that. Period.
Despite having a Chinese parent, isn't it the case that TikTok itself does not operate in China?
It doesn't but sends a good amount of data to China which they have not yet (to my information) clarified. Similar ban was implemented in India, which gives more context to what I am trying to say. Source: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1635206
And parent company will always have the dibs, if you will, on Tiktok. Regardless of whether tiktok is out of China or in.
There is no firewall between TikTok and Bytedance, so basically you can think of them as one company producing 2 apps, one inside China and one outside.
You don't think there's a difference between USA vs CCP? There are many examples of standing up to the government in America. That doesn't happen in China.
As European, that belongs to the first generation out of a dictorship, another thing that surprises me is the American belief that three letter agencies care about any law besides their own internal regulations.
Even in the current democracy state, is my expectation that our own ones across the European states will do whatever it takes, with various degrees of flexibility.
We have trade-deals across countries, and IMO these trade deals should account for access to markets, e.g., Chinese companies can operate in Europe freely (abiding by our laws) _if_ European companies can operate in China freely as well.
Trade-deals change all the time, and when these change, some companies might get kick off.
I think this is a functional and rational thing to do for the EU.
If you don't have any deals or specific laws about it, then pretty much everything goes. Maybe the EU could have a law that all foreign companies that abide by the EU rules can operate in Europe freely, but I strongly doubt that. Every country does pretty much whatever they want in this regard (e.g. we see it with some countries allowing Huawei to sell 5G equipment, others forbidding it, and others like Germany attempting to forbid it without mentioning Huawei). All these countries have different rules, so they all end up doing their different stuff.
China (+) is buying lots of EU companies, "forcing" them to produce and do engineering in China, with a Chinese partner, and then ripping them completely off, as part of their 2025 program.
TBH I'm very concerned about some of the companies they have bought (e.g. Rukka). I am certain this is good for China, but I don't see how this can be good for the EU in the long term. China is very open that their plan is to acquire and become leaders in the technology, and then flip a switch and cut us out.. but they are the highest bidders today...
(+) these are actually chinese companies, but sponsored and ordered by the Chinese government, with essentially unlimited funds.
The farce at the UN Security Council that Colin Powell made years ago spelled that out pretty clearly already. If anything, it somewhat formally respected the role of the UN, but the brazen lying asserted how the USA wasn’t worried at all of the consequences
To me, this whole TikTok escapade highlights just how dangerous the situation has become with privacy and "tech". From everything I have read and seen, "TikTok" is a gimmick, another frivolous way to kill time, a passing trend. This is not a company that produces anything important for society. Except when we consider that what the app purports to be for its users or advertisers is not its true value/purpose. TikTok is a surveillance vector. We can all pretend that privacy is not a serious issue except amongst tinfoil hats, activists or those tasked with defending the tech industry. However this bizarre story, to me, suggests otherwise. Personal data, access to it, the right to spy on millions of people, carried out by the private sector, is now being fought over by nation states. Younger generations should be up in arms over surveillance. Instead, at least in the US, they want to use these apps and work for these shameful companies. Older generations, who should know better, are willingly using Alexas and the like. Interesting times.
I have noticed this too. It is very odd. I suppose everybody walking around with 2 cameras and a microphone in their pocket with widespread high-speed Internet connectivity is too much of a chance to miss for some institutions / agencies!
I hate this "As a European" generalizations as if Europe has an entirely homogeneous spread of governance. Take this for a second; Bulgaria and Denmark is both Europe, or Hungary and Sweden.
Europeans have one thing in common though: they aren't americans, disregarding the minority of stationed soldiers, diplomats, expats, immigrants, etc.
"As an European" is a good way to state that you are indeed not an american. The general assumption on places like hn is that you are one. It's visible in the topic choices. As an example, the team viewer IPO, even though it's been a multibillion IPO, didn't get into hn while tons of SV tech startups do.
There's obviously more implied by that statement though. The poster is making a criticism that their identity is apparently meant to support.
When it comes to trending topics, as an insomniac I commonly find myself posting at times where Europeans or Asians dominate. Even then, US stories often dominate because so many non-americans are apparently just as obsessed with FAANG/Trump/NSA hotbutton stories as Americans (edit: at least when restricted in both cases to political wonks who post on the internet). One does get a lot of interesting perspectives from non-americans in such discussions. But "as a person from somewhere that doesn't suck, here's why you suck", generally isn't one of them.
You are absolutely right in that it gives the wrong impression of "everyone thinks the same". That said, I don't think that is the intention, ever, when it's used.
There are certain aspects in how things work in the US that are so far disconnected to how it is, in most of Europe, that is baffling. By an large, this difference applies to most of Europe.
It is of course an oversimplification. But, here are a few boggling things: Politics (in particular, money in politics that looks like plain bribery, or political and misleading ads everywhere), for profit private prisons, no maternity leave, unpaid internships, healthcare related personal bankruptcies.
The list goes on and on, and, since this is a by and large difference to Europe, you tend to see the "As a European" phrase.
I strongly disagree. There is nobody in Eastern Europe (or Western Europe if they know enough about politics) who is boggled by money in politics or misleading ads.
There are countries in Europe that have had Gulags in the last 50 years, I doubt they are boggled by the idea of a for-profit prison system.
As a European who has lived in America and now in SEA, this "as a European" is used by people who generally don't understand the variety of different life experience of people in Europe.
I wonder if you're not going a git hard on the "strongly disagree". The main issue I think is that "as a European" tends to excludes eastern Europe in its generalization. As such, I agree that it isn't very correct. It would probably make more sense if it was "as a citizen of the more politically homogeneous Western Europe, in particular Portugal, Spain, France, Ireland, UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Italy, Iceland, Austria... and to some extend also but not so much for all topics and cases the other countries in Europe"... but that is a bit too terse.
I think it also tries to convey how different "a very large number of countries and millions of people" views X. It will always be a generalization.
So, if you consider "as a European" to be "Western Europe", it very often applies, overall. It is a generalization, after all. And, as far as generalizations go, I honestly think "as a European", or... maybe better "as a Western European", if you will, to be very useful way to express a very complex connection, and difference in opinion or... zeitgeist. For example, it helps illuminate the dichotomy in the reaction to private philanthropy in the US that should have never been necessary. For Americans, it is accepted that it is a heart warming act, while (for a European), it more often comes across as dystopian.
As a final note, I'm wondering if you might not want to see that argument I'm presenting. Because you point out how my case with ads and money in politics isn't that uncommon in western Europe. Let's be clear, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, or that Europe is problem free or perfect, or anything like that, but the problem and perception of it, is worlds apart. Attack ads come across as a joke that have no place in political discourse, yet, it is everywhere in the US.
But then again, maybe you are right. It is after all pretending to include the "shared voice" of people who do might very well not share that voice. It can be disingenuous. I wonder if making it more specific will still open up for smaller subsets that disagree. If you say "as a Norwegian", you are still implying agreement from others that will very much disagree.
Maybe more nuanced would be EU citizen, instead of European. At least the EU has some sort of political agenda and a somewhat coherent view on international relations. A continent on the other hand does not have an agenda. It is a landmass.
I don't think it gets hugely better when you look at the EU. I mean, maybe it becomes possible to say some things as an EU citizen, but the differences between governance and politics in Sweden and Bulgaria are significant. Private prisons are certainly available in the (current and recent) EU. (Literal, not merely "ad") corruption is barely hidden in the east, and certainly present in the west. Indeed, an American could easily react with a measure of shock about how little Europeans care about how important a free press is to sustained democracy.
The EU does stuff, but it is far more interested in a being a trade block than a protector of liberal democracy.
This must be the weirdest gatekeeping comment I've seen in a while. Also, who is claiming what now? Words and conventions are a thing, so it seems awfully unproductive to say something that is, isn't.
To make it worse, the "As a European" is usually followed by a very judgemental or even arrogant statement. As we, the enlightened, don't understand those hillbilly politics.
What does the OP not understand? The concern of China controlling key economic and tech areas? OR that a president can block a company from operating in his country?
As a European, I might not agree with the decision but I do understand the general concern behind it.
With EU being "ever-closer Union" and US being a federal country where states have a lot of local power, it's not as far-fetched as you'd think (although EU is of course nowehere near the level of integration that US is).
Also, the same way "America" can mean "the US", it's not strange to see people colloquially refer to the EU countries as "Europe", though both are, technically, not correct.
The US has always be reckless when they want to take control of a foreign company. Other administrations have at least been a little more discreet, but it happened nonetheless.
See what happened to Alstom for example. There is a book about that, "The American Trap".
The US must be viewed as an empire not just any country. If the empire sees something as a threat, it will find legal justifications for doing anything and it will absolutely make distinctions between local corporations or ones with too many ties to rival geopolitical states.
Pretty much every country does that. Look at IP disputes where courts constantly find for their own country's company, often to the point of making new law at the supreme court level to do it.
What does that have to do with empires? An empire rules over others, while any country will take care of its own.
This is the US, we've even threatened companies if they have too many ties to a rival political party. Let alone a rival political state. It's just the reality of the environment here in the US.
>As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning.
How did you feel about the COVID shutdown? Millions of businesses were just forced by government on very short notice to shut down operation
As a different European, maybe at least some laws are created based on precedents ... maybe? Maybe there is a law coming, be careful what you wish for.
The office of the US President has amassed a significant amount of authority over the years, with the general understanding that power must be used responsibly. The current occupant of the office seems to have little regard for the judicious use of that power.
Really, nobody should be disagreeing that the rise of the PRC poses a serious threat to US interests, but wrapping everything in the boogeyman of national security and issuing legally dubious executive orders such as the one banning TikTok and WeChat give critics ammunition to claim we're not really following any sort of process here (i.e. the rule of law).
"We need to do something about the PRC" is not a foundation for standing up to the PRC. Praising actions like the current fiasco with TikTok feels like praising a doctor who assaulted 15 people in the ER, vomited on the floor, punched a nurse in the face, but properly stitched up someone who had gotten their lip busted before leaving their shift. Nothing that has been done really sets up a plan for dealing with China even in the immediate future. The sudden forced closure of the Houston consulate lacks public context for the rapid escalation in hostilities and the same goes for the ban on Huawei. I have no doubt that there is something suspicious going on, but it is difficult to see a cohesive vision in all of these thrusts against the PRC and that is terrifying.
It's not clear that the president's action is legal, but there are laws such as those empowering CFIUS to review acquisitions of US companies by foreign buyers (in this case, musical.ly) for any national security implications.
These national security implications are probably far-fetched, but there's some theoretical basis for action here...
> As a European I find this whole story very confusing. A president that can just force a specific company on very short notice to shut down operation, is very concerning.
The US has a "democracy" where the president acts almost like a king. Of course there is a judiciary, but it is slow and doesn't meddle in most decisions affecting international affairs. This kind of behavior wouldn't be acceptable in the UK, for example, where there is a real monarchy. The actual law in the US is to take over other countries that are not labeled as "friends".
What I still don't understand is why European governments haven't made tit for tat measures against China in corporate law.
Why do we allow free market access to chinese companies when they don't? Are we crazy? Why not give the keys to our factories/companies while we are at it?
Low growth prior to COVID, a weightier dependence on trade with China, and the lack of anything slightly resembling a unified foreign policy don’t leave much room to maneuver as a whole, nevermind on their own.
1. Automotive: BMW, Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, all German companies, have complete access to the Chinese automotive market. Volkswagen would be dead, because of the diesel-gate scandal, if it weren’t for the Chinese market saving their sorry asses. BMW probably makes more money from the Chinese market, than any other market worldwide. And these German companies have almost 100 years of manufacturing knowledge, that the Chinese side did not have. Is this fair? You decide.
2. Airplanes: Europe has Airbus, which has some 50% of the Chinese aviation market. This looks like a monopoly here in favor of the Europeans and Americans. Will the Europeans allow Comac to compete fairly when they get their passenger planes airworthy? That is debatable.
3. Luxury products: European brands have a captive market in China. Louis Vuitton is French. Other Italian brands, etc, they all have free access to the Chinese market. Do you see any Chinese luxury products in Europe? Zero. Is this fair? You decide.
4. Software: Europe has SAP, Siemens, also German companies. These companies can freely sell in the Chinese market. Is there a similar Chinese company that can sell into the European market? I can’t even think of one. Is this fair? You decide.
Chinese side:
1. 5G: The Chinese finally create a new technology that they have full intellectual property rights to, the 5G internet, and what happens? They are now banned from every single European country. The reason? The potential for spying. LOL. How convenient of an excuse from the Europeans.
2. China has WeChat, but this appears to be irrelevant in Europe.
3. China has Alibaba, but this is also irrelevant in Europe.
4. China has mobile phone makers, but all are Android. And guess where the majority profits go to? The United States companies, Google, Qualcomm, etc.
It appears that the European side makes the lions share of the profits. They earn more from branding and royalties. Whereas it seems the Chinese side makes peanuts in comparison, and they must fight for the scraps in volume, to earn a decent profit. Is that fair? You decide.
This is obviously not fully conclusive, but each side plays to their own strengths.
> 1. 5G: The Chinese finally create a new technology that they have full intellectual property rights to,
Chinese companies may own a significant share of 5G-related patents, but other companies (like Samsung, Ericsson, Qualcomm) weren't just idly sitting by, so the intellectual property rights are distributed piecemeal across multinational companies. https://www.iam-media.com/who-leading-5g-patent-race
> the 5G internet, and what happens? They are now banned from every single European country.
Has any European country besides the UK even taken steps in the direction of banning Huawei or other Chinese companies? And I thought even the UK hasn't implemented a ban yet?
Most of the Chinese market is already freely available to European companies, so the "tit for tat" measures tend to be small as well, just raising tariffs on products of companies receiving government subsidies or whatever.
Sure we can be an open society, it's all about proportion and equality. Why should we continue to let them buy our companies freely when they haven't changed their draconian corporate laws?
We have been open, we gave them the opportunity to reciprocate, they refused, then we close up shop for them. It is only fair. We are an open society, but we are not idiots, (at least I like to think so...).
The point is that many countries are claiming that China is abusing its designation of “developing country” and want that designation revoked. China, of course, is fighting that tooth and nail.
The only reasons that China passes the sniff test is because they have the biggest population that skews averages and because they also have insane income inequality. Only CCP propagandists would try to insist that a nation with the money for nukes and aircraft carriers is still “developing” :^)
Even if Kevin was to stay as TikTok CEO, he would have to leave his role as the COO of ByteDance. It’s totally understandable that he would want to leave given the reduced scope (no more head of a global company etc.). What seems suspicious however is why he would leave prior to an acquisition. As a CEO, that won’t reflect too good on his reputation... so there’s gotta be a tradeoff somewhere. Wait & see!
If I had to read between the lines, his leaving is signalling that Bytedance is digging into their position selling the minimum number of assets (US + 4 eyes) and the negotiations are reaching the crucial stages.
Previously there was still hope of selling TikTok globally.
More importantly it seems that Kevin/TikTok has no influence at all in the negotiations - it is purely between Bytedance and the relevant companies. This is probably the real reason he's leaving - he's in no position to shape the deal and it isn't looking good for him right now.
This is something that has totallly escpaed the western world. This appointment was just a pr move, similar to hugo bara and xiaomi and many other ceremonial CEOs at chinese compnaies. it never ends well.
I agree with this, but it doesn't make sense to eject him at this point in time if that was the case. So the decision to leave must have been from Kevin.
It might hurt his reputation to have left at a time like this, but I imagine not necessarily any worse than his reputation would wind up being if he stuck around at the helm for a pawn in a game between the US and Chinese governments. If an acquisition does actually materialize, which still seems to be a very big if, it would be under existential duress, which is not a favorable negotiating position. Despite its popularity and success, TikTok has been pulled into a completely different arena now, and its unclear that there are winning moves for it to make which aren’t contingent on a sudden shift in politics.
I'm not sure you can blame him personally for the troubles... I mean it was pretty difficult to forsee, and almost impossible to mitigate a geopolitical war over your company...
I'm definitely not blaming him. I'm observing that he's calling it quits instead of helping his team weather the storm, and that as an employee, I would look disfavorably upon a manager who has previously left their team in the lurch when they most needed a leader.
While this definitely is valid, TikTok has other strong leaders including Vanessa Pappas the GM for TikTok US who will be taking over. This seems like a rationale decision on Kevin's part, with a strong leader in succession who is more than capable of seeing through what comes next if TikTok US splits off from the global entity.
If there wasn't a strong leader already to take his place then it would be a very negative decision on Kevin's part.
He left Disney after being passed over for CEO. Although (assuming that Microsoft or a comparable company buys TikTok) he would likely stay on as its head, with potential to rise within should he do a good job, Mayer is one of the very few people who's already been in that exact spot (or higher; Disney might have a smaller market cap than Microsoft, but in every other way they are equals in their global reach and ambition), so to speak, so it's understandable that he wouldn't want to go through it again.
That said, surely his contract has provisions for a payout should his company gets acquired. Wouldn't leaving before any transaction close void that?
If I were TikTok I would move my international operations to a European country that was friendly to me and then wait until the anti-China sentiment in the US settled and then try again.
Rather that than force-selling the US part at a bargain price.
Europe would love a social media giant that could match those of the US. And just behaved better than the US ones when it came to taxes and data privacy ...
It is clearly futile in the current environment but who knows in a couple of years.
Unlike maybe Huawei, TikTok tried to play ball with the US. As far as I can see they were aiming to spin off the international part of TikTok as a US firm, IPOed on the US stock markets. That is why they hired Americans as CEO, developers, managers, board members ...
The sentiment in Europe right now is fear over Chinese money purchasing European companies piecemeal.
European valuations are kept artificially low by, well, it seems just by being in Europe. With companies struggling from covid, the usual lack of European leadership on any sort of stimulus, and the US not in a position to bail the European economy out again a la 2008, there are a lot of buying opportunities.
Currently the sentiment is mainly confined to political and business circles, but I wouldn't be surprised if it overflows into the general public once jobs currently on wage support start disappearing next year.
This is essentially the austerity that was pushed onto Southern Europe because the ECB didn't have any mandate to engage in monetary policy until 2012, when the ECB started to rely on more creative readings. By this time it was QE from the US Fed that was driving the recovery, but the ECB did eventually engage in similar practices, if only to bail out assets owned by the northern banks.
Nonsense, politicians get into much more trouble for way less than that. He just doesn't know how to handle pressure - which is what he is paid well to do. Unacceptable.
it's a different role. he signed on to be a media exec and cut licensing deals. suddenly he's in the middle of a trade war and politics with some of the worst people on the planet. "fine people on both sides"
I am highjacking your comment to express my confusion about this dispute. Not that it exists, but on what grounds it exists. Has TikTok done something that is materially different and worse from what, for example, Facebook has? Or is it only that they do similar things, but they originate from China?
They operate under the rules of a powerful political jurisdiction which is not particularly friendly to the US.
Here's a simplified version of how the government thinks about it:
If Facebook has data on a government employee, it's not a big deal, because Facebook stores that data in the US, and is friendly to the US, and if they do anything bad, they ultimately answer to the laws and regulations of the US government. These things are not necessarily the case for TikTok data.
This is pretty much the first time that a service operated under the laws of a US rival has become popular in the US.
> TikTok is not a Chinese company, it operates under US laws.
TikTok is a subsidiary of ByteDance which is headquartered in Beijing. It operates under US law, and it operates under the control of a parent company that operates under CCP control.
> You're just repeating disinformation spread by the US government.
The claims made by the person you are responding to are not things the US government has said. In fact, you can file suit against foreign companies in the US -- this person's misunderstanding of the situation has nothing to do with the US government's stated concerns.
Many Chinese Americans use it to communicate with family. Some of them work on sensitive programs and are easily monitored by a multi app with broad permissions.
Chinese immigrants are the primary users in the states, and they don’t use it for any economic transactions in the USA, obviously (stores might support wepay, but that is targeted at Chinese tourists).
The joke is, kids/K-Pop fans communicated on TikTok to "prank" Trump by buying tickets to his rally and not showing up, making him look bad, and 10 days later Trump started roaring about the app.
Of course Fox News, etc, claim "this Chinese app is subverting democracy", etc, but IMHO they were just using it to communicate...
I would hope the majority of people who are aware of international affairs do not think so lowly of the American people, so dimly of American government, and so shallowly of international politics, that they'd believe our president would (or be allowed to, for that matter) coordinate a government-wide subversion campaign with far-reaching consequences over a prank
I mean this is the same President who falsified a weather map using a sharpie because it violated what he had said earlier in mistake (I am guessing it was a mistake).
He was allowed to coordinate a government-wide campaign that was impacting a large amount of people, and violated various integrity codes of NOAA and resulted in citizens being provided with false information, as well as eroded the trust of people in an integral agency.
But on being "allowed to", incredibly Trump is surrounded by Yes-Men, and it seems only fools dare accept his appointment, even fools whose reputation was great so far in their lives: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/12/10/john-kelly-le... . Of course there are a lot things Congress and Senate can do to block him (but Mitch McConnell is another Yes-men, what is it with conservatives and their lack of spines?), but in the example of TikTok, he used executive order to demand the stuff.
You do realize Barack Obama fucked his wife right? Multiple times as they have 2 children. They probably talk dirty to each other when they're alone, like almost every other couple that exists.
Should I now think less of Obama on the off chance he secretly spanks his wife in bed?
My point is you have to be very far removed from society to believe that no one has ever talked in a vulgar fashion, especially in a country as sexualized as ours. And to then equate vulgar chat in private conversation somehow with the idea that nonsense is suddenly an acceptable state for Americans. You can think what you want.
>My point is you have to be very far removed from society to believe that no one has ever talked in a vulgar fashion, especially in a country as sexualized as ours.
Using vulgar phraseology is not the issue here. I'm not sure how you came away with that impression.
Yet it is, but for the sake of fast-forwarding the disagreement, let's assume for now that Drake, or any other male rapper celebrity, or any other celebrity period, or any semi-famous man has never in private conversation talked about how easy it is for them to take advantage of their celebrity status to get what they want from women.
When you assume that, then the president looks quite like the rare unique case, wouldn't you say?
At the very best then, it'd be the way he said it (so, the phrasing) combined with the fact he's the president (or was running to be), a role which we expect not only the highest levels of decorum but also humility and respect for the citizens, and combined with the fact that just because Drake might do it, it doesn't mean it's an OK thing to do. I don't know about other people, but I'd definitely criticize anyone for not only using their status to grope people, but then to brag about it. To brag about it betrays a certain mindset and characteristic of disrespect for people, and in this case, women.
In other words, I'd think lesser of my friend for saying something like that to me, or overhearing him in another conversation. The same goes doubly for the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet.
You're perfectly free to decide how you view someone based on what they've said. My issue is do not then assume that everyone who isn't as offended is somehow being unreasonable or that the world has descended into nonsense. I don't condone what he says, but I understand that people do say those things, and I separate what he says in confidence from how he acts in situations where it matters - I see a 0% chance that the president will talk about groping when having a discussion with Vladimir Putin.
>a role which we expect not only the highest levels of decorum but also humility and respect for the citizens
That has never been the case. Nixon was known to vilify journalists, Clinton had already been known for his womanizing and sexual unforwardness, and LBJ pissed in the street casually. Never have we had a highly curated robot as a president, they all have quirks that would turn off segments of the population if it were common knowledge.
Why are you focusing on the vulgarity of the comments and not the fact that it would be non-concensual?
> I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Those very heavily imply non-consent. The vulgarity comes much later as an issue.
More so, Obama spanking his wife in bed is a hopefully consensual private act between husband and wife. Trump talking about random women, who are not his wives nor in a relationship with him as to how he just kisses them and they let him since he has the power is for one, rape, and two, cheating on his wife.
I honestly cannot see why you'd think I would listen to what he said and use that to form a general opinion of his leadership capabilities. How one talks about fondling random women is not something I'd use as a measure of their ability to lead a country
>Trump talking about random women, who are not his wives nor in a relationship with him as to how he just kisses them and they let him since he has the power is for one, rape, and two, cheating on his wife.
I'd rather not have a discussion on the ethics of gossip, as it would achieve absolutely nothing
> How one talks about fondling random women is not something I'd use as a measure of their ability to lead a country
Holy bejesus. And how is his ability to lead a country? Do you think it is as good/poor as how he seemingly treat random women?
On the topic of ethics, how about the ethics of having sex with (and then paying off) a porn star, that's not gossip since the courts have basically confirmed Stormy Daniels told the truth.
How shallow does your judgement go (oh I can guess, but I thought I'd prompt you to do some self-reflection)? Being a leader is mostly about people skills, and his rapey hands should make you ask whether he respects women or not, and whether that would extend to him respecting other people or not. OK Genghis Khan was a good leader, he also did a lot of raping, sadly for Trump and his defenders the kind of leadership needed nowadays isn't the 11th century kind and I doubt he could ride a horse fast.
I don't agree with this. Being a leader is more about vision, about where he wanna go. Like Jobs, everyone under him thought he was an asshole. A lot of great leaders in human history were just pretty bad examples in terms of personal life. It is nice to have a high moral standard for political figures. But it is just difficult to be perfect. Obama, from my point view, is a nice man. But a failed president achieved nothing during his presidency.
From your 2 replies I'm presuming you are a Trump defender, at least you're denying parts of reality and twisting facts so they conform to your image of the world (that he's a good, at least decent president, and that you're not an idiot for supporting him).
Sorry, the issue isn't the private conversation, the issue is that the contents of that conversation was him saying he can get away sexually assaulting women because of he's a "star". If Barack Obama was recorded saying something like that while talking to friends, would you defend him?
I can't reply to your other post, presumably because the thread is too deep. For one, you continue to make assumptions about me. By all means feel free, if this year has been any indication I can only expect the vilification of anyone not immediately damning the president will continue.
>Holy bejesus. And how is his ability to lead a country? Do you think it is as good/poor as how he seemingly treat random women?
I don't know how to get across to you the point that people talk about dirty things in private. If you want to believe that that kind of conversation is the domain of devils, be my guest, you don't seem like the type to be swayed by reason.
>On the topic of ethics, how about the ethics of having sex with (and then paying off) a porn star
I still don't care, unsurprisingly. It really isn't that hard.
>How shallow does your judgement go
Because I choose not to base your abilities on how you talk to your friends in private? Then release all of your text messages for the public to see, since you seem to be living in a reality where people all hold hands and sing kumbaya, and talk about science and hand-holding every waking moment of the day. You have a job, don't you? Would you also be so deaf to posit to me you don't have any skeletons in your closet? I'm able to make the reasonable judgement that the president doesn't go around for his scheduled 2 PM rape session every Thursday, but apparently that's too much, and I should dial back my comparisons to the guy's humanity.
>OK Genghis Khan was a good leader, he also did a lot of raping, sadly for Trump and his defenders the kind of leadership needed nowadays isn't the 11th century kind and I doubt he could ride a horse fast
Truly ironic that you're simultaneously able to make the distinction there is not a 1:1 correlation with leadership capability and personal action for a literal rapist but not for the president. If anything this discussion has shown me how disgustingly vapid people can become when they are unable to refrain from having their emotion leak through every single post when the word "Trump" is brought up.
Yes of course, because anyone who would dare to not fill their post with detriment of the president, must in fact also support the president, contrary to any information otherwise.
Assume what you want, I don't support Trump and apparently I don't need to attract hate from others like you, not that I am in any way suprised.
>If Barack Obama was recorded saying something like that while talking to friends, would you defend him?
I wouldn't care. Not a single bone in my body would resonate emotionally with what he said, because seemingly I have the rare, esoteric knowledge of understanding that humans will talk about particularly dirty topics when they're with friends.
Bytedance is incorporated in the Cayman Island, its not a Chinese company. It has a subsidiary in Hong Kong that operates the Chinese business. Its this portion of the business that has to adhere to Chinese laws. The rest of the company, including the US subsidiary is not under the jurisdiction of Chinese laws, and the US subsidiary fully owns TikTok. The data storage and content moderation are all handled by US employees. If the parent company or Chinese government is forcing US employees to censor based on Chinese government demands or steal US data, I am pretty sure US employees would have said something by now. Instead, they seem to proud of the security work they have done. I have seen a lot of anti-China videos on TikTok.
The US subsidiary of Bytedance that operates TikTok is subjected to US jurisdiction and US laws. US government has equal amount of control over it compared to Facebook. TikTok was sued and fined before for breaking under age related laws.
Bytedance's CEO is Zhang yiming, is a Chinese national. And its board has one Chinese national and three non-Chinese nationals. It's owned by a number of international investors, these investors likely have a say in the company as well. These people would not have built a company with Chinese government DNA. Zhang yiming himself has criticized the government in the past. Although he has toed with Chinese government lines in China because he has to. But he personally admires the US and its political culture. The management is also saying they are moving HQ to other countries. I think given the management's mindset, they really want to deal as little with the Chinese government as possible. Working on behalf of the government, nah, its not their mindset. To be honest, it might be even smart for the US government to lure Bytedance management, get them to declare they support liberalism and American values and use Bytedance to spread American values to China. Instead, US gov's action to force a sale is basically extortion and coercion. And having government take a huge chuck of the transaction is stealing personal property. It goes against all that US stands for, rule of law, justice, protection of private property. There are a lot of people in China loves the US and American values like the above, in turn they emigrate to the US and hate Chinese government. That image has definitely being broken a bit by all of this.
> Bytedance is incorporated in the Cayman Island, its not a Chinese company. It has a subsidiary in Hong Kong that operates the Chinese business.
The location of incorporation bears no relevance on the control on the people and property within the physical jurisdiction of a country. Bytedance's physical headquarters is in Beijing.
> Bytedance's CEO is Zhang yiming, is a Chinese national. And its board has one Chinese national and three non-Chinese nationals. It's owned by a number of international investors, these investors likely have a say in the company as well. These people would not have built a company with Chinese government DNA. Zhang yiming himself has criticized the government in the past. Although he has toed with Chinese government lines in China because he has to. But he personally admires the US and its political culture. The management is also saying they are moving HQ to other countries. I think given the management's mindset, they really want to deal as little with the Chinese government as possible
Then it should be clear how much power the CCP has over them, when he says things like this:
> in April 2018 the government compelled ByteDance to shut down its popular “Neihan Duanzi” (“inside jokes”) app for good due to its “vulgar” content. In response, Zhang issued a letter of self-criticism where he said, “Our product took the wrong path, and content appeared that was incommensurate with socialist core values.” He also promised that the firm would in the future “Further deepen cooperation with authoritative [official party] media, elevating distribution of authoritative media content, ensuring that authoritative [official party] media voices are broadcast to strength.” [0]
Bear in mind here, I am simply listing reasons why the US government would be marginally concerned about ByteDance in comparison to domestic social media, not defending the mechanisms by which this current administration is handling things.
You are so naive. Just like how naive Hongkongnese was 23 years ago. "One country, two system" was bait. Huawei and tiktok were also baits. Now they seems harmless. But will be not when they show their true color.
There is no point in showing facts, people here are operating under Trump's misinformation spell. They think china is in every corner trying to steal their data (of course Facebook has already done this first, but who cares).
You misunderstand the concern. The US government is concerned about national security interests, not personal privacy interests. You may also note [0] that Facebook (and Twitter, and YouTube) has been the subject of similar concerns by the US government.
> They think china is in every corner trying to steal their data
Because they factually are. But as some people misunderstand, they're not interested in your grandma's recipes or your mom's credit card number -- they're amassing data that is a gold mine for targeted military intelligence operations.
The stated issue is that TikTok may share American user data with China and that there’s not any real way for the US to prevent this possibility. So it’s seen as a national security issue that the Chinese govt could track Americans. TikTok has insisted that there’s no way that user data could be shared with the Chinese govt but I think US regulation bodies and intelligence do not buy it.
Is the national security concern that high-profile Americans such as members of congress, high ranking US military or executive branch officials are exchanging classified state information across Tiktok?
Or is the national security concern that the Chinese government can force TikTok to give up their data to Chinese authorities?
So China has 1.4 billion people to data mine on using a minority-report-like data warehouse mega structure in the like of which the world has never seen before, and all of those people are in their own jurisdiction. Assuming that’s the kind of infrastructure the Chinese government can build and is fully operational, why would they justify the time, cost, and energy required to fetch what meme someone’s looking at from overseas and risk damaging their already shaky reputation with their biggest trading partner? Even if there’s a conspiracy and they cared about what your phone number was or where you lived, what could they do with it? Yes clearly the most plausible theory is that they’re kidnapping Americans from their homes in broad daylight. Or perhaps covid was synthesized in a lab so next year Americans will be getting biological super weapons mailed to them. Or maybe 5G is a mind control device that’s hiding the truth from all of us, the truth that you can parse html with regex.
Anyways, we have a presidency largely based on putting pressure on China with a proven history of reactionary measures would, make a reactionary anti-china measure for the sake of supporting a partisan policy right before the November election.
There are obviously a lot of shady things we are seeing surfacing from the Chinese government that warrant further investigation, and there are diligent people are on the ground right now trying to push through the secrecy of that government. But with Tiktok, it’s a baseless conspiracy theory rooted in irrational fear that’s being used as a political tool.
Of course, Facebook has done much worse for much longer, but they're doing it for the US. And Americans are very afraid that the Chinese will eat their lunch around the world on technology too. That's why they're so clearly frantic about this.
Trump is down 10+ points in the polls. That’s what this is about and TikTok only needs to run out the clock to the 2nd week of November at which point this whole thing will go away for them.
Yes Trump is probably using this as political leverage, but the US being concerned about Chinese govt possibly spying on Americans using Chinese companies dates back to the late 2000s. Cynically dismissing it as a Trumpian fluke masks the prior art/implies there’s no issue whatsoever.
That by itself doesn't mean that decision making in this case is not being influenced by political concerns of the current POTUS (rather than being driven by long term geopolitical interests of the nation).
I think you need to update your knowledge of the polls, as much as you may dislike Trump, he isn't down by 10+ points any more.
Regardless, the media has convinced people that only the Republicans and Trump want to see something done about TikTok, but, in fact, there are plenty of Democrats who are also wary of TikTok. Maybe they don't want an outright ban, but they want something done. But since that doesn't garner as many clicks, there will be a bunch of stories claiming it's a bad idea because Trump did it.
There are real reasons we should be worried about the CCP right now. If you track the news, you'll see lots of people being found to be CCP spies and charged. There is a big problem with the CCP having spies and/or people friendly to the CCP in government and academia. Don't let your hatred for Trump blind you to the fact that the CCP is rapidly becoming an issue.
Rapidly becoming an issue? The US has been ignoring China’s burgeoning power for 50 years and allowed US CEOs to get gazillion dollar payouts by shipping American manufacturing jobs to China. That doesn’t change the fact that 1) an isolated spasm against TikTok accomplishes nothing if not part of a broad and permanent portfolio of initiatives, 2) whether Trump wins or loses this election he doesn’t give a shit about anything but his own political and financial fortune, and is too dumb, too lazy, and too corrupt to actually lead this soft power war. If you think Donald Trump is up at night worrying about China exfiltrating the data of US teenagers data... I can’t help you but please wear a mask.
Vitriol aside, I suggest you adopt a more objective view of politics, instead of allowing your personal emotions to guide your view of governmental affairs. For one, TikTok is not the target, it is just the first domino of many, intended to lay the groundwork of how the government will deal with similar cases in the future. Secondly, you should at least make an attempt to not project your personal bias onto others - unless you somehow have firsthand knowledge of what goes on in the mind of the president, I'd hesitate to take you seriously, especially considering your implication that the half of the country that voted for him relates to dumb, lazy, and corrupt people. Finally, I have no idea what keeps Trump awake at night, but it is clear to not only to him, but also Xi Jinping, the military establishment, and intelligence agencies, the subversive capability of Chinese intellectual labor and services. Whether or not they'll pull the trigger on utilizing those capabilities is yet to be seen, but I imagine it must be stressful knowing that at any time, a foreign government can capture insane amounts of data on every US citizen who has the app, and their intentions will likely not align with ours.
Sure sure, 5D chess, and the verbal nonsense oozing out of him on camera and on Twitter has no relevance to his 250-step master plan. Yep yep yep I’m waiting with bated breath, what I think is most important is making sure he figures out just what pizza parlor it is.
We could always go with the assumption the president is a bumbling idiot who can't tie his shoes properly. I'm sure that characterization will help understand the deeper picture here. /s
You fail to see the point. I don't care either way how you wish to view the president, but your projections serve no purpose in understanding the reason why these events are taking place and what their ramifications are. As I stated in another comment, you seem to have a very shallow view of politics that doesn't extend past media hyperbole.
I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that we are at the beginning of a war and we have a Commander-in-Chief who lacks the intellect, attention span, or perhaps even work ethic required just to utter a coherent sentence.
You're right, the war has been going on for decades, and the US is losing. It's not being fought with bombs, but China's goals are no less ambitious than your famous super-belligerents of world history.
a) China is a de-facto dictatorship, with no independent press or judiciary, who is right now committing mass genocide with the Uyghur muslims and has a long history of kidnapping both citizens and non-citizens abroad e.g. in Hong Kong and Australia.
b) TikTok has been collecting a LOT of data including your personal details, contacts, location, WiFi networks etc. It's not just stupid videos it was everything they could get which on Android at least is a lot.
c) Given the history with previous Chinese owned companies and with overseas companies operating in China there have been requirements that data is made accessible to the government.
China right now monitors users behaviour online and kidnaps them for "re-education". We should not be giving them the tools to keep doing that.
The guy cannot have NOT known that this was going to be part of the job. There have been grumblings about TikTok for over a year now, and while this has escalated of late, it was clearly already a big piece of the gig when he joined.
It's interesting that the "not enough scope" issue can also happen at the CEO level.
My naive view was that CEO is in charge of everything, and thus have practically maximum scope. It turns out that is only the case for CEO who wants to stay with the company for a long time. For CEO who doesn't treat the company as their baby, they can potentially focus more on "building a resume" so they can move to be a CEO of a bigger company.
My suspicion is that Kevin Mayer had no intention to stay with TikTok for long in the first place. He just want to demonstrate that he can run a global company, and then jump ship to some other place.
Kevin Mayer got passed over for the CEO position at Disney for an exec in the theme park division. From what I've read, this was somewhat unexpected.
Kevin wants to run a company of note with global scale, so he probably thought TikTok would be a good fit. He brings lots of media experience to what is, from one perspective, a media company.
He's probably severely disappointed that his incredibly short stint as CEO is being undone by US politics and M&A at big cap tech companies. Two major career opportunities followed by utter disappointment in less than six months. It's got to hurt, even with the amount of money he makes.
? It seems very unlikely to me that the buyer would want to create instability at the top... aren't execs typically incentivized to stick around for a while, to help transition post-acquisition? It seems more like he felt this wasn't what he signed up for.
It's been a long time since I've had a look at Sky; I was just about to comment on how good the offering is on NowTV's Sky Cinema Pass... until I realised that it only included movies.
For a similar price with Netflix you get movies + TV shows. Granted that the selection of movies on Sky Cinema do seem better, but if you're a fan of both then its still hard to beat Netflix's offering
You can also get Sky's boxsets etc via NowTV. And yep it's 2-3x the price in total, but my goodness is it worth it. Especially in lockdown, paying £15 for a month's high quality TV and film is great value.
He was a clear thinker and not a jerk (at least by Hollywood or Bay Area standards). And he got Disney plus done quickly and successfully which I wouldn’t have thought was a big deal had I not seen how poorly others have done.
The only data that TikTok is stealing is the latest hiphop dance moves by teenagers! This big hoopla was manufactured to paint Chinese companies as some kind of monster. Completely absurd. I'm really surprised how a bunch of otherwise intelligent people in this forum can follow for the disinformation campaign waged by Trump to paint him as a "protector of American freedom".
The owners of these popular social apps directly control millions, billions of people by presenting them with the content they decide and taking all the data about each individual, with stunning implications.
The only ridiculous thing is that this is happening unregulated.
To me this reads as tiktok definitely being acquired. And as they negotiate with either Microsoft or Oracle it is becoming clear to Mayer that he will have more oversight and a greater focus on profitability over growth which isn't what he signed up for.
I think that with court proceedings and media stunts TikTok can run out the clock to November 5th at which point the cat will forget about this ball of yarn and go off in search of some other laser pointer.
The executive order bans (to-be-defined) transactions with ByteDance and subsidiaries with the carve-out of "notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order."
Wasn't it going to be required by law for Kevin Mayer (as an American) to leave TikTok or become a lame-duck CEO? If he didn't leave, he couldn't accept, for example, new stock grants.
Working for TikTok and holding an American passport is a colossally dumb idea.
I mean, to steer a company through power struggle between the US and China is very interesting and could be a big plus for future high profile jobs. Unless he doesn't have much a role at the table and feel hurt. I assume it is the case.
Considering we've been retaliating tit for tat with China for awhile now, it's inevitable we'd start blocking their tech companies like they've done to Google, FB, etc. I see the list of blacklisted Chinese tech companies increasing in the near future.
What makes you think that? The Russian government just poisoned another opposition thinker, these things are not beyond the pale. North Korea hired a couple of pretty girls to kill a renegade brother or somesuch in public. China has disappeared people over just a few wrong words
If I were in that position I'd make sure I have at least a couple bodyguards, and good ones at that
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Spoon-fed propaganda does that to people. It’s easy to fall into a black or white binary “good” vs “evil” trap, which clouds peoples judgement and makes them overlook the nuances that are in every dispute.
What is even more concerning is that a lot of people here tend to agree because of the China thing.
If it is that important, why is there no law that enforces this?