Holy shit, that is a sweet deal. What I think is more interesting however, is that it's also kinda revealing that they think law works like this in the West - and also what level of control they think is acceptable for a state to have.

[–] nekandro@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago

This is even more extreme than Douyin's arrangement with the Chinese government lmao

It's so funny

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

What I like is that the west is the one failing to stick to its own stated principles of capitalism and private property.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The US has basically always had some level of federal control over some private property, beginning with construction of the National Road in 1806. "Principles of capitalism and private property" as you describe it here is a much newer ideology popularized by Reagan in the 80s that's still a libertarian fever dream much more representative of the US Republican party rather than "the West."

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

No doubt, but it is the rhetoric of today. But this is still yet different than control of limited physical resources. It's a company who built a product. It's clear nationalism over principles.

[–] Weslee@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Tbh I'd say it's more about the fact china doesn't allow western companies in china to do what tiktok was doing in the us.

[–] nekandro@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago

I mean... These terms exceed what Douyin does in China. It's actually an insane level of concessions.

[–] Poayjay@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

That’s the huge take away here. The Chinese can’t comprehend that the DOD doesn’t have a social media control division. Yes we have the NSA and stuff spying, but they don’t control anything.