AWS already had to effectively do this. AWS only exists in two regions in China because they licensed much of the AWS software to be run by a pair of Chinese-government affiliated ISPs inside China (that is, Amazon doesn’t run AWS in either of its China zones — it’s run by a pair of Chinese companies who license AWS’s software).

This is why the China AWS regions are often quite far behind in terms of functionality from every other region (they either haven’t licensed all the functionality, they don’t keep up-to-date at the same cadence as Amazon, or Amazon is holding certain functions back), and why you can’t really access them from the standard AWS console.

So in effect, Amazon did have to give their software to Chinese-government affiliated companies in order to continue operating in China.

How would we feel if say, China decided Microsoft/Google/AWS/Oracle had to sell to a Chinese company on the grounds of national security?

But no one is saying that ByteDance has to sell TikTok to a US company. Just divest it to an owner that is not beholden to the Chinese government and obligated to share any and all data upon request. Compared to the legal requirements that China puts on US companies operating in China, this is a pretty tame ask.

Except that is what China already does. Cloud providers with regions in China have to utilize a local partner company which gives access to the whole tech stack. It’s a reason that AWS China regions were always so far behind in service offerings to the rest of the AWS regions.

They wouldnt have to sell their IP even just the userbase and videos would be valuable enough to let someone else plug in an algorithm. Then again, i suppose this could all just be bluster.

They aren't being forced to sell their operations in the entire world, just the US. So, doesn't it make better financial sense, if all legal options to keep control fail, that they sell their US operation to another company, and at least get billions of dollars before exit, than to just lose the market and get not billions?

Bullshit, they're bluffing at best.

Average revenue per user is a pretty common industry benchmark, and the US absolutely slaughters the rest of the world. We're the fat, dumb, brainwashed cows the advertisers can't get enough of.

Is that really justified, or an example of selection bias?

Does it matter to a shareholder?

They’d reluctantly use Shorts or Slides if there’s no alternative, but realistically it’ll be something new. TikTok’s absence creates a vacuum that could be a huge opportunity for a new platform.

TikTok creators I follow get miserable amounts of views on YouTube. Shorts algorithm is nowhere near as good as TT and it's missing loads of features that make TT unique. If those creators were forced to move they'd probably go with Instagram but that's a poor replacement too.

As a European I'm curious how TT will look like without Yanks. It's already much more usable after it was banned in India so there's that.

Or, just as likely, would download some VPN and go on.

They are going to reels

It won't matter if there are ways to side load or circumvent, though. 99.9% of users will not be willing to be bothered with such things and the US market would effectively die for the app.

it's not like it will auto-delete.

You're probably right it won't, but it definitely could be done by Apple and Google.

The main win is banning a content recommendation algorithm that is influenced by the CCP. A secondary win is reducing consumption of short form content. A tertiary win is eliminating that God awful narrator voice.

There's no valid 1st amendment argument here. This doesn't ban American voices, that can continue to be shared on alternative platforms, it bans the CCP Government's propaganda inserting itself in American media consumption.