WSJ Criticizes 'the Billionaire Keeping TikTok On Phones In the US' (msn.com) 72
Six months ago Republican Senator Josh Hawley proposed legislation banning downloads of TikTok in the U.S. But this week he told the Wall Street Journal that "TikTok and its dark-money cronies are spending vast amounts of money to kill these bills."
The newspaper argues that TikTok's "friends" in the U.S. government — backed by billionaire financier Jeff Yass — "helped stall attempts to outlaw America's most-downloaded app." Yass's investment company, Susquehanna International Group, bet big on TikTok in 2012, buying a stake in parent company ByteDance now measured at about 15%. That translates into a personal stake for Yass of 7% in ByteDance. It is worth roughly $21 billion based on the company's recent valuation, or much of his $28 billion net worth as gauged by Bloomberg.
Yass is also one of the top donors to the Club for Growth, an influential conservative group that rallied Republican opposition to a TikTok ban. Yass has donated $61 million to the Club for Growth's political-spending arm since 2010, or about 24% of its total, according to federal records. Club for Growth made public its opposition to banning TikTok in March, in an opinion article by its president, at a time when sentiment against the platform among segments of both parties was running high on Capitol Hill... With many Democrats already skeptical of a ban, the whittling away of Republican support killed momentum for several bills, including the bipartisan Restrict Act backed by the Biden administration...
TikTok's own lobbying efforts in Washington have included hundreds of meetings and other contacts, according to a person familiar with the matter. One of its main arguments to Republicans has been that a majority of ByteDance's shareholders are Americans, and some are well-connected conservatives, this person said. The lobbying appears to have helped push House Republican lawmakers to back away from the idea of a ban on TikTok and focus instead on legislation that would put new legal protections in place for users' personal data...
The Biden administration hasn't indicated any change in its effort to ban the app or force its sale. It could still try to use executive powers to ban it, or force a sale to remove Chinese control. But without legislation, analysts say those orders could be overturned in court.
The newspaper argues that TikTok's "friends" in the U.S. government — backed by billionaire financier Jeff Yass — "helped stall attempts to outlaw America's most-downloaded app." Yass's investment company, Susquehanna International Group, bet big on TikTok in 2012, buying a stake in parent company ByteDance now measured at about 15%. That translates into a personal stake for Yass of 7% in ByteDance. It is worth roughly $21 billion based on the company's recent valuation, or much of his $28 billion net worth as gauged by Bloomberg.
Yass is also one of the top donors to the Club for Growth, an influential conservative group that rallied Republican opposition to a TikTok ban. Yass has donated $61 million to the Club for Growth's political-spending arm since 2010, or about 24% of its total, according to federal records. Club for Growth made public its opposition to banning TikTok in March, in an opinion article by its president, at a time when sentiment against the platform among segments of both parties was running high on Capitol Hill... With many Democrats already skeptical of a ban, the whittling away of Republican support killed momentum for several bills, including the bipartisan Restrict Act backed by the Biden administration...
TikTok's own lobbying efforts in Washington have included hundreds of meetings and other contacts, according to a person familiar with the matter. One of its main arguments to Republicans has been that a majority of ByteDance's shareholders are Americans, and some are well-connected conservatives, this person said. The lobbying appears to have helped push House Republican lawmakers to back away from the idea of a ban on TikTok and focus instead on legislation that would put new legal protections in place for users' personal data...
The Biden administration hasn't indicated any change in its effort to ban the app or force its sale. It could still try to use executive powers to ban it, or force a sale to remove Chinese control. But without legislation, analysts say those orders could be overturned in court.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at my comments I'm pretty far from a Chinese stooge. I also hate social media with a passion. I still think this is stupid and there's no 1st Amendment compatible way to outlaw TikTok. I'll repeat the rhetorical question I've asked a few times now, why does Russia Today get a pass in these conversations? That's an actual propaganda mouthpiece for a hostile foreign government. 1st Amendment doesn't allow banning that either.
Re: (Score:2)
To your point, why all the hate for TikTok's alleged privacy abuse/risk while the US government looks the other way for US companies like Meta, Google, Microsoft, Snapchat, etc.? Personally I'm all for regulating all social media companies [nih.gov] and I can realize a strong argument for making their newsfeed algorithms public. And this isn't a US exclusive. For example, look at all the problems Facebook/Meta caused in Sri Lanka [buzzfeednews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
China keeps not honouring Iran sanctions. This more than anything else cements them as a strategic threat (Israel being an US vassal, or perhaps vice versa).
When you accept they are a strategic threat, allowing social media app data to flow into their borders is simply idiotic. The stasi had nothing on social media, commerce with an enemy during detente is one thing, giving them access to the greatest spying tool in history is another.
Re: (Score:2)
You make a strong, convincing point and I could not agree with you more. In fact you're someone I'd like at least represented at the negotiating table for new US social media standards, if not having you there in the role yourself. Regulation, if you will. And restricting private data from China is of a paramount concern, for reasons of national security no less.
With that achievement in our pocket, it makes sense to hold everyone else up to the same standards of privacy, and so should be the law of the land
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they're a strategic threat. That doesn't override the 1st Amendment though. Again, two words: Russia Today.
Re: (Score:2)
RT was already kicked off the app stores, there's no pressing need to handle them. Websites aren't as insidious as apps.
As for first amendment, as I said in the other reply, I doubt the Supreme Court will extend it to foreign controlled corporations when push comes to shove.
Re: (Score:2)
The supreme court has already ruled foreign companies don't have first amendment rights, in case of specific legislation I doubt they would not extend that to foreign owned/controlled subsidiaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the usual China stooges...
Cue the usual clickbait Mash-dot threads...
Re: EXACTLY (Score:1)
Cambodians have donuts shops.
Italians had/have pizza shops.
So they both use flour as their main ingredient. Does that mean the IRS needs to check how much flour that cambodians are buying too, just like they checked on the amount of flour purchased for the pizza places?
Re: (Score:1)
let's see, could it be a historically oppressed population of people has an extremely strong sense of community, a religious faith that unlike it's other two Abrahamic brethren was able to adapt to the modern world and not mire itself in luddite thinking and also because of that oppression it has a very strong culture of education, almost stereotypically so happens to end up producing well educated and ambitious people.
or in your brain somehow 0.2% of the population with no control over any nation but a sin
Re: (Score:2)
Josh Hawley? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does name sound familia?. Oh right. he's the coward who was caught fleeing for his life [cnn.com] on January 6th as the "peaceful protestors" [politifact.com] he raised his hand in support to not long before, tried to kill elected officials [cnn.com], including then Vice President Mike Pence [pbs.org] who had to shelter for his life with Secret Service agents on the loading dock [cnn.com] of the Capitol [newsweek.com].
Considering he supports a Russian agent [imgur.com], he should know all about dark money and how it works.
Re: (Score:1)
Hawley sees a conspiracy behind every Chinese. It not personal with him. He's got the former alleged president's relationship with facts and truth.
Re: (Score:1)
And since you got modded down for no reason, I'll repeat what you said here, people can go back to the original for the actual links:
Why does name sound familia?. Oh right. he's the coward who was caught fleeing for his life [cnn.com] on January 6th as the "peaceful protestors" [politifact.com] he raised his hand in support to not long before, tried to kill elected officials [cnn.com], including then Vice President Mike Pence [pbs.org] who had to shelter for his life with Secret Service agents on the loadi
Re: (Score:3)
Adding that Hawley maintained his objection to counting Arizona's electoral votes even *after* the insurrection, along with five other senators [go.com]:
The Senate voted 93-6 against objections to Arizona's vote certification. Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MI), John Neely Kennedy (R-LA), Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) all carried through with objecting to the electors.
There were 121 House members [npr.org] (listed near bottom of article) who maintained their objections for Arizona, all Republicans. In addition:
House members also objected in the cases of Georgia, Michigan and Nevada, but no senator joined in the objection, thereby preventing debate.
The only other state disputed with support from both chambers was Pennsylvania; 138 House members, all Republicans, supported the objection, as did seven senators: Cruz, R-Texas; Hawley, R-Mo.; Hyde Smith, R-Miss.; Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.; Marshall, R-Kan.; Tuberville, R-Ala.; and Rick Scott, R-Fla.
Re: US can be grateful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly true, but I doubt it. I think they have backdoors for TikTok too.
Re: US can be grateful (Score:3)
The U.S. does not 'have backdoor in those apps'. NSA has PRISM. That's very much frontdoor, straight to the data centers.
Backdoor is what the U.S. and U.K. planted in allied countries like in E.U. to tap the Commission, national governments, heads of state.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it isn't an act of war when the U.S. does it?
Also, oh the irony, how it's U.S. conservatives that keeps TikTok from getting banned. You get to keep your freedom long as I can have my popcorn.
Oh oh, Here it comes (Score:2)
The almost new Dumb Slashdot.
I despise tiktok (Score:2)
I also despise a lot of things in pop culture
People have been doing silly things because of silly fads for a very long time
Bans don't work
Re:I despise tiktok (Score:4, Informative)
The bans purpose wasn't to stop people doing "silly things". TikTok collects massive amounts of data which get funneled right back to the CCP.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess your point is: "Wouldn't another brainless video app take its place?" I don't know, that's an interesting question. Natural Selection among social media networks doesn't seem to be as simple as that. Nothing replaced Vine when it was killed. Twitter's replacements don't seem to be doing very well, even as Twitter is dying. I imagine that all the people who currently use Tikt
Re: (Score:2)
One could say TikTok itself is what replaced Vine, even if there was a gap between the two.
Re: I despise tiktok (Score:2)
Technofeudalism (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
We are all serfs now to our techno overlords.
"It’s a big-picture hypothesis rooted in a historical account of how capitalism came into being that describes what is happening in terms of an epochal, once-in-a-millennium shift. In some ways, it’s a relief to have a politician – any politician – talking about this stuff. Because in Varoufakis’s telling, this isn’t just new technology. This is the world grappling with an entirely new economic
Re:Republicans love dark money. (Score:4, Funny)
Especially with the $32B they washed through FTX in Ukraine and then on to the RNC!
Well how about that (Score:3)
Plutocrats accuse other plutocrats of plutocratting
This will end (Score:3)
When a woman uses TikTok to obtain an abortion.
Thanks For the Info, Josh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> on a freaking smartphone app
That's categorical thinking.
A word processor app is not the same as a snuff film app.
Should second graders have access to both?
Is psychological warfare real?
Why is American TikTok banned in China?
Re: (Score:2)
Is psychological warfare real?
Yes. Why is nobody trying to ban Russia Today?
Why is American TikTok banned in China?
Because the CCP can’t abide platforms they don’t have complete and total control over.
Re: (Score:2)
The party of small government now telling me what software I'm allowed to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that there are two factions to the "party of small government."
The one faction wants small government that leaves more decisions to state and local governments, lower taxes, etc etc etc. The other faction wants a small government because a dictatorship doesn't need to be large.
Re: (Score:2)
This wealthy conservative almost single-handedly killed the Restrict Act, a bill which was the worst ever assault on American liberty -- ever. For that one thing alone, I salute him.
Free Market (Score:2)
Let the free market sort it out.
I don't think that's correct (Score:3)
At this point in time, what's keeping TikTok on phones in the US is the many millions of people who spend hours on TikTok every day.
I don't understand it, but there it is.
Re: (Score:1)
At this point in time, what's keeping TikTok on phones in the US is the many millions of people who spend hours on TikTok every day.
Someone floated a hypothesis that the reason they don't like TT is because they can't control it.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the likely reason. The GOP don't want to represent, they want to rule. They want everyone to follow their sky daddy and the rest. I don't get the mega narcissism that has taken hold in society and the thinking everyone else wants to hear what others say. I find it mostly noise. I don't buy the "they have our data! We have to ban it." when every company has the same collected data. The McCarthyism (Joeseph not Kevin) ... hellva drug.
Good for the goose... (Score:2)
Do these people not remember being teenagers? (Score:5, Interesting)
The surest way to make teens *LOVE* something is for adults to make it known that they hate it.
I remember when the "kids these days" outrage was all about baggy and saggy pants. Numbskull politicians and school administrators in suburbia had themselves a moral panic and started trying to ban them... which, of course, was the fastest way to make sure they stayed cool amongst teenagers, a group whose primary trait may as well be "rebellion against whatever the adults say." This was particularly stupid (And unfortunate... looking back at my own teenage pictures, those pants were pretty damn fugly.) because in the more fashion-forward parts of the country (NYC, LA, Miami) baggy clothes were already well on their out, in favor of fitted, skinny, and eventually emo jeans. Those looks eventually... as they ALWAYS do... trickled down to the second and third tier cities and then down to the suburbs. But the bans on baggy pants just made them cool again and slowed the inevitable process of their eventual replacement.
I see TikTok going the same way. Every effort by old people to ban it is just going to make the kids want it more. Eventually, like with skinny jeans replacing baggy, something new will become cool and replace TikTok... just like TikTok and Instagram replaced the socials that were cool before them. Fighting TikTok will just slow that process down. The solution here is not more legislation, but less. End the current efforts at kneecapping Silicon Valley, let it go back to full speed on moving fast and breaking things, and eventually one of those things that gets broken will be TikTok, which will join LiveJournal, Friendster, MySpace, Tribe, Orkut, Google+, Ping, Digg, and oh so many others, in the dustbin of history.
Re: Love is a rare thing nowadays (Score:1)
That Bytedance? (Score:2)
Shitty headline (Score:2)
"Keeping Tiktok on phones" sounds like someone spending money to induce phonemakers to have the Tiktok client preloaded on new phones. That would, indeed, be hideous and worthy of exposure and scathing criticism.
But instead, it's just about opposing a ban?! That's pretty damn different from "keeping" it.
Social manipulation not privacy is the threat (Score:2)
Ban it just as much as it's banned in China. Apparently they have a huge problem with what they're exporting here. Lets look at their reasons for that and believe them.
Communist Witch Hunt 2.0: The Chinese (Score:2)
I would have thought that Biden would back down Trump's policies but, apparently there's still good politicking in making up alleged foreign threats. Plus, you know, they're not even white people! Extra racism bonus with your Red Scare 2.0.
Ooga booga! The Chinese know you're watching cat videos.
Love it (Score:2)
fascists criticizing other fascists - the Trump Crime Family likes to talk about dark money... and pretty much all of it is ultra-right-wing.
Dark Money Cronies? (Score:2)
I wonder the same thing whenever I hear whining about Soros-funded candidates. Are the complainers against private funding of campaigns in general? I wouldn't think so, but eliminating that would solve the problem of billionaires funding candidates you don't like.