News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chinese hacking spree hit an ‘astronomical’ number of vic... by mdasen on Saturday March 06, 2021 @03:23PM (#26370243)
$1T of US debt sounds like a lot, but it's less than 4% of US debt. It's not an insignificant amount, but they don't own a lot to impact the US economy. Japan owns more ($1.25T) and the UK and Ireland get up to $0.75T.

Realistically, what would china do? If you "start massively selling US debt", what does that mean? Someone has to buy it. You're increasing the supply while demand probably stays pretty constant. But realistically, I don't think it could go below 90-cents on the dollar. I mean, who wouldn't take US government debt at a 10% discount? Compared to commercial debt from a company with way more risk than the US government, that's way better. So, are we talking about raising the US government's cost to borrow by a few percentage points for a few months?

China can't really disrupt the US economy via its debt holdings. Actually cutting China off from the US would have a far greater impact. Heck, Trump's tariffs were a tiny move and created intense disruption in a lot of industries like bicycle sales. That's not even cutting off China or anything. Imagine if smartphones couldn't be imported into the US for a year or two?

But I don't think the original poster is talking about "cutting China off" in whole. I think the issue in question is about a company like ByteDance/TikTok getting to operate in the US while Google, Facebook, Clubhouse, etc. get blocked from accessing China. If TikTok doesn't need to compete with US companies in China, but Twitter/Instagram/Clubhouse need to compete with TikTok in the US, it means that Chinese companies will have double the market to sell into.

China's GDP is around $24T and the US's is around $21T so a service like TikTok can get access to all $45T while a US-based company like Facebook can't get access to the Chinese market. If you're able to service both countries, your investment in software, infrastructure, etc. goes further.

I don't think it's about cutting China off, but rather wanting a more level playing field. When we're talking about something like smartphones, Apple, Samsung, and others sell into the Chinese market a lot and while China might do things to help its own companies like Huawei, it's open enough to placate a lot of people. That's very different from Facebook and Twitter which are banned in the country. Apple is 20% of the Chinese smartphone market.

If a US company makes the Next Big Thing in social networking, a Chinese company gets to copy it for the Chinese market. If a Chinese company makes the Next Big Thing, they can launch it in the US market as TikTok did.

I don't think this is about cutting Chinese manufacturing off. I think this is a question of whether firms like ByteDance/TikTok should be allowed to come into the US while US firms like Facebook or Twitter can't enter China.

Re:Chinese hacking spree hit an ‘astronomical’ number of vic... by fspeech on Saturday March 06, 2021 @04:18PM (#26370598)
You may have a valid point but on a technical note TikTok does not operate in China either because they don't conform with China's content censorship policy.
Re:Chinese hacking spree hit an ‘astronomical’ number of vic... by BobbyJo on Saturday March 06, 2021 @04:54PM (#26370879)
It's called Douyin in China.
Re:Chinese hacking spree hit an ‘astronomical’ number of vic... by dragonwriter on Saturday March 06, 2021 @04:59PM (#26370912)
Isn't Douyin a separate service offered by ByteDance directly (or a separate subsidiary from TikTok), not a local name for TikTok, which is offered by the company of the same name which is a subsidiary of ByteDance?
Re:Chinese hacking spree hit an ‘astronomical’ number of vic... by BobbyJo on Saturday March 06, 2021 @11:20PM (#26373099)
Is there enough of a difference for that to matter?

If Facebook created a similar sibsidiary social network for China, and called it '脸书' would China care about the distinction?

Re:Chinese hacking spree hit an ‘astronomical’ number of vic... by fspeech on Saturday March 06, 2021 @11:44PM (#26373211)
The original post I replied to was implying economy of scale because he based his claim on competitive advantages coming with a larger addressable market. However if the market is actually divided (firewalled really), with no sharing of brand recogniton, content creation, marketing, infrastructure, customer service etc, where does the economy of scale come from? Even source codes are now developed separately. There is some sharing of business model and basic technology, but is that truly formidable? There is certainly no network effect (between TikTok and Douyin) which would have been the most significant barrier.
Re:Chinese hacking spree hit an ‘astronomical’ number of vic... by BobbyJo on Sunday March 07, 2021 @01:06AM (#26373573)
Well, the economies of scale come from capital concentration. Since the money all flows through the parent, they have capital to use to improve their likely hood of success. Not just financial capital, but human capital too.
Re:Chinese hacking spree hit an ‘astronomical’ number of vic... by fspeech on Sunday March 07, 2021 @01:25AM (#26373659)
Google and Facebook have more access to capital, financial or human, than any of their competitors. If anything they are at a strong competitive advantage in this respect.
Re:Chinese hacking spree hit an ‘astronomical’ number of vic... by BobbyJo on Sunday March 07, 2021 @11:14AM (#26377018)
This thread was about the unfairness of asymmetrical market access, not who is worth the most right now. Side note, in all likelihood, ByteDance would be worth a lot more if they were an American company, even if nothing about their business and revenue changed, because there would be less perceived systemic risk. That being said, the capital difference between them and Google in terms of PPP isn't huge because of lower costs in China.
Re:Chinese hacking spree hit an ‘astronomical’ number of vic... by fspeech on Monday March 08, 2021 @06:09PM (#26392913)
I merely refuted your claim of where the competitive advantage came from. It is clearly from the network effect of the first movers. China blocked Google and Facebook so they could not exploit their first mover advantage in China. If US wants to do the same to TikTok for the same reason I am totally fine with it. It is just kind of lame to attribute it to unrelated issues. Of course there is a reason for obfuscation here, at least from the government's point of view. If it becomes the norm in the world to block companies from exploiting their first mover advantage due to network effect across national boundaries, US companies would suffer more.
Re:Chinese hacking spree hit an ‘astronomical’ number of vic... by NoOneNew on Saturday March 06, 2021 @05:18PM (#26371033)
>who wouldn't take US government debt at a 10% discount?

Better question, who wants to be the guy that goes, "I have a great idea. It'll really piss off those yanks. It'll just cost us about $100 billion (the price of like 7 Gerald Ford class carriers) along with the interest payments. A small price to pay to piss them off and have their private corps and allies buy their debt at a discount."

That's borderline a scenario like that comic meme at a board meeting for ideas and the dude gets thrown out the window.