I'm starting to become fatigued by all this TikTok news. Either ban the app or don't. Causing anxiety over TikTok without any action is the worst of both worlds.
So rather than exposing the cost/benefits of an app, you just want the government to make a decision about what methods of communication are available to everyone? And instead of making a thorough case why a particular method has to be banned for good reasons tangential to the content, you want them to make that choice and announce it?
I think banning very invasive social media until it minimizes tracking is a reasonable option, but that's something that should be done by passing laws and public debate.
Banning TikTok until it minimizes tracking pushes the blame onto TikTok (unfairly IMHO). Apps all have the same Android/iOS permissions to work with, so if there's really a problem, the Govt should consult with OS vendors on tightening controls across the board.
The news is literally designed to do that to you. Stop consuming so much of it for your own mental well-being, and that of everyone else you interact with.
That's not an interesting question. No, no they should not. And that would be true even if there were US investors. Just like we don't compensate AirBnB shareholders when cities outlaw short term rentals.
But, there are no non-Chinese investors in Bytedance. There are US investors in Hong Kong (?) companies that have exposure to Bytedance and move 1:1 with Bytedance, but explicitly included in their risk analysis is that government action may zero out that 1:1 nature at any time by political action.
It is very interesting to me to see if the US government is capable of putting the average citizen's welfare above that of heavy hitting investors. It would be a welcome change if they did.
> ByteDance is financially backed by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, SoftBank Group, Sequoia Capital, General Atlantic, and Hillhouse Capital Group.
Not an interesting question at all, IMO. The government is not required to protect you or make you whole, if you invest in an enterprise that the government later decides to prohibit, or makes illegal, or decides to regulate in some other manner.
I mean, think that through for a second: if the government had to compensate everyone for the negative impact of legislation, it would be almost impossible to pass laws. If my town says I can't burn tires in my back yard, do they need to pay me to shut down my tire-burning operation? What if I don't even have a tire-burning operation, but I could have started one, except now I'm prohibited from doing so... did they impair the value of my property by prohibiting a potential use? What about all the other things I could have done with my property, absent any pesky zoning restrictions, Clean Water Act rules, or just centuries of common law precedent? Do they have to pay me for the impairment of each of them, each time a law is passed that eliminates a hypothetical option?
No, of course not, because that would paralyze government and be ridiculous.
The government has no responsibility to make anyone whole if they decide someone's business model is counter to the public good and make it illegal. It's on my investors to take into account the risk of legislation that might impact the business and factor that into their investment decisions and subsequent valuation of the business. If they do that poorly, or fail to recognize a legal risk, that's on them.
This is literally why sovereign immunity is a thing.
>Critics also state that treaties are written so that any legislation causing lost profits is by definition a treaty violation, rendering the argument null that only treaty violations are subject to ISDS.
