• Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    ByteDance’s owners include investors outside of China (60%), its founders and Chinese investors (20%), and employees (20%).[35] In 2021, the state-owned China Internet Investment Fund purchased a 1% stake in ByteDance’s main Chinese subsidiary, Beijing ByteDance Technology (formerly Beijing Douyin Information Service), as a golden share investment[36][37][38] and seated Wu Shugang, a government official with a background in government propaganda, as one of the subsidiary’s board members.[39][40][41]
    —Wikipedia, check article for sources

    In business and finance, a golden share is a nominal share which is able to outvote all other shares in certain specified circumstances

    From the article you linked:

    Is ByteDance Chinese?

    Definitely.

    Does the Chinese government own or control ByteDance or TikTok?

    Chew has emphatically told Congress that ByteDance is not owned or controlled by the Chinese government.

    However, like most other Chinese companies, ByteDance is legally compelled to establish an in-house Communist Party committee composed of employees who are party members.

    Analysts have said the “golden shares” provide a way for the Chinese government to get more directly involved with the day-to-day businesses of tech companies, including in the content they provide to the public.

    Chew has admitted that the “golden share” exists. But he said it was for the purpose of internet licensing for the Chinese business.

    In 2018, China amended its National Intelligence Law, which requires any organization or citizen to support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence work.

    That means ByteDance is legally bound to help with gathering intelligence.

    In 2021, China introduced a new data security law, which applies to data processing activities conducted outside of the country that may “harm the national security or public interests.”

    There is also a cybersecurity law in China, which says the state will take measures to monitor, prevent and handle cybersecurity risks and threats “arising both within and outside the PRC’s territory.”

    These vague and broad laws apply to technology companies and may be used to regulate them.

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Is ByteDance Chinese?

      Definitely.

      shocked-pikachu

      Whelp if corporate American media says that then it must be true 😆

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Cite a better reasoning than what the article uses to arrive at that conclusion then.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think the article speaks for itself. It says ByteDance definitely is a Chinese company and then goes on to explain the ways in which it isn’t, including majority ownership. If the US government has the power to kill the company, one might argue that it’s more an American one than Chinese.

          • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            The definition of a golden share is effective control. Tell me how that and the following is going “on to explain the ways in which it isn’t”.

            ByteDance was founded in 2012 in Beijing by Zhang Yiming and Liang Rubo, who were college roommates at Tianjin’s Nankai University, according to company information and Zhang’s public speeches.

            It has been based in the Chinese capital since then. In 2021, Zhang announced he would step down as CEO of ByteDance and handed the reins to Liang.

            The US government has the power to kill Huawei if they wanted to; it’s their territory and they can do whatever the heck they want, of course. That doesn’t mean Huawei is US-owned.

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              7 months ago

              The definition of a golden share is effective control.

              That’s not nothing, but still not the be-all and end-all that you seem to want to make it.

              The US government has the power to kill Huawei if they wanted to; it’s their territory and they can do whatever the heck they want, of course. That doesn’t mean Huawei is US-owned.

              Is this a joke? The US government just tried and failed. Huawei reclaims top spot in China’s smartphone sales ranking, its first time back since company was added to US blacklist

              Huawei Technologies climbed back to the No 1 spot of China’s smartphone market in the initial two weeks of this year, according to a report by research firm Counterpoint, putting more pressure on 2023 industry leader Apple and major mainland rivals in the world’s largest handset market.

              This marks the first time Huawei reclaimed the top smartphone sales ranking on the mainland since Washington imposed sanctions on the Shenzhen-based company when it was added to the US trade blacklist in May 2019, which crippled the firm’s once-lucrative handset business, according to the report on Sunday by Counterpoint research analysts Ivan Lam and Zhang Mengmeng.

              That resurgence was jump-started by Huawei’s surprise release last August of its Mate 60 Pro 5G smartphone – powered by its advanced Kirin 9000S processor, which was locally developed in spite of US tech sanctions – as well as the firm’s Android replacement mobile platform HarmonyOS, the report said. It also pointed out that brand loyalty among Chinese consumers greatly contributed to the popularity of Huawei’s new 5G handsets.

              • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                I’m saying that they have the ability to ban any freaking thing in their territory. That Huawei is doing well outside of the US is irrelevant. If Huawei’s US division was forced down by the US, that is killing it, and they’re still not American.

                That’s not nothing, but still not the be-all and end-all that you seem to want to make it.

                Explain further how it isn’t a Chinese company despite its origin and its base of operations. Even if it isn’t, all that’s relevant is that China can influence TikTok into giving them their data for free today.