The U.S. government should not be in the business of shutting down social media firms on the basis of China-hate. TikTok is no worse (and in fact seems to be far better) than various social media apps from U.S.-based firms. There's a lot of be upset with China about, but TikTok (and DJI, which also has bipartisan China-hate trying to ban it) are not where Congress should be getting involved. If Congress passes such bans and Biden signs them, there will be major court battles and courts should strike the bans down.
@lauren the point is not to punish China, itβs because its a security threat. Think of it this way - imagine if Musk bought Tik Tok. It would be a shit show right? Nobody would disagree. Now, instead of Musk, imagine it was Xi Jinping. Same shit show, except Xi already effectively controls Tik Tok. See where this is going? Its not about punishing China or Tik Tok, its just we dont trust the Chinese Communist Party to be in control of a social media company with so much power in the US
@CaptMorgan I consider Zuckerberg and Musk to be vastly more dangerous in terms of security and privacy risks than TikTok. If China wants data on U.S. citizens, right down to detailed PII, all they have to do is buy it (even if through third parties) from the U.S. data brokers that Congress refuses to control. China doesn't need to screw around with social media apps and drones to do it. It's all utter nonsense.
@lauren @CaptMorgan I donβt even hate #ElonMusk but youβre 100% right. In fact, there are two problems with this whole #TikTok fearmongering debacle:
The power to relatively arbitrarily ban a social media platform will likely be misused and abused.
Domestic social media platforms are far greater threats because the government can more easily manipulate or control them.
@realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren
do you know who Jeff Yass is?
he's one of the biggest GOP donors
he funds an Israeli right wing think tank that authored Netanyu's attempted take over of the judiciary
and he owns a 15% stake in tiktok
tiktok is exactly the filth you are concerned with, not magically immune from your criticisms
π³π±
Im not sure what point your making. The fact that someone who bought some tiktok stock has done some bad things has what exactly to do with tiktok? Is he the CEO or even work for them?
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren just read the article. he owns over 15% valued at 15 billion. His susquehanna group gave startup funding for bytedance in 2012. He's not "some random investor"
I mean tats literally some random dude with shares, granted its a high value of shares, but still a random dude with shares. You do know a share holder, no matter how many shares they hold, does not get to dictate or influence day to day operations at a company right?
I mean, i literally just took a company public and run several corporations.. Pretty sure I know exactly how this works.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren well then you know a major stakeholder that helped found a company has influence, he's not some rando. Additionally you know that tiktok is funding the GOP and right wing Israeli think tanks through him
It would literally be illegal (and very uncommon) for an investor who holds no position in a company to have any day-to-day influence. They can and do have influence when they hold a position in the company. That position may even be as a board member, though this would very much limit their dat-to-day influence.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren
Okay. A major founding stakeholder in a company has absolutely nothing to do with the company. You win. π€£π€£π€£
Not what I said... try reading what I said and try again.
My new company has about 7 founding investors at about the same ownership % as him... I have never even heard from a single one of them past the initial investment. I run the company and they dont even know me, let alone have influence.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren Unread. Uninterested. You're not being serious.
Yea, you not reading things before having strong incorrect opinions is quite clear.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren
That's right. This biased nonsense of mine that major founding stakeholders have something to do with their companies makes me a total crackpot. π€£π€£π€£
Oh you are certainly a crackpot, but your misrepresentation of my argument isnt why.. well it is, but for reasons you clearly struggle to understand.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren yes I agree. There is a hamster somewhere in this thread struggling mightily to turn its wheel π€£π€£π€£
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren you got it bud! Good luck with your companies. Might want to look into how shareholders wield power in company decision making my friend. Take care.
You might want to try bringing your reading comprehension up. I never said they had no influence in decision making. I said they have no influence on day-to-day operations. Words are your friend.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren oh wow! That's what you said. Huh. I thought it was "I mean tats literally some random dude with shares". I deeply apologize for my poor reading skills and i am in deep gratitude for you correcting my foolishness. Thank you. π€£π€£π€£
Thats what happens when you dont actually read what was really said... glad you realized reading the **whole** thing is important. Hopefully you wont make that mistake again in the future.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren sure thing man! you've deeply impressed me with your deep knowledge on the topic. Yeah. π€£π€£π€£
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren it's more like a pointless petty thread on mastodon going on a deranged tangent, but it's amusing
On the flip side me and 2 other investors DO hold positions, all C-level, and as a result of holding positions we have a great deal of influence as founders.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @CaptMorgan @lauren
"I mean tats literally some random dude with shares"
I stopped reading here. All you are saying is that you have no idea what you're talking about.