If TikTok is divested from its China, and TikTok or its assets are transferred to a U.S. company, "divest it" resolves YES.
OR, if ByteDance disallows U.S. users from accessing TikTok, or otherwise exits the U.S. market, "shut it down" resolves YES.
Alternatively, if the bill is overturned and TikTok is allowed to operate in a structure substantially similar to its current structure, this question resolves N/A and all traders get their mana back.
Fine print: The law gives TikTok up to a year to be divested. If this timeline is extended due to legal challenges, the question won't resolve until ByteDance makes (or is forced to make) its final decision. For example, if ByteDance disallows U.S. users from accessing TikTok but they have credible ongoing legal proceedings to overturn the law, this question will stay open until the legal disputes are resolved and TikTok finalizes its decision.
1,000
3.00@traders Please note that I am closely tracking the latest development, including the fact that TikTok has "shut down" for U.S. users. Traders should be aware that this does not mean that "shut it down" will resolve YES.
TLDR: This question cannot resolve yet because the fine print states that temporary shutdowns are allowed before TikTok reaches its final decision. The overwhelming public sentiment, including TikTok and our leaders own statements, show that this is not likely final (yet) and they are waiting for Trump to make a decision once he is in power. We will have a clearer idea of the resolution once Trump is in power and decides how he will approach this.
For those who want the long version of my thoughts:
The fine print section of the rules clearly states that TikTok is even allowed to temporarily shutdown, but as long as that isn't likely the "final decision," the question will remain open.
Whether something is the "the final decision" is a little bit subjective, I will admit. Unfortunately there is always going to be a little subjectivity in a question like this. There were/are plenty of other markets on this site for more straightforward questions like whether TikTok will EVER shut down.
But here is my logic at the current time: the TikTok announcement text states that TikTok believes with Trump coming into power, things may change for their future. And I think the vast majority of the public does not see this as the "final state" at this time. I think once Trump decides what he is going to do, we will have a clearer picture here about what TikTok's intentions are.
Let me give another example to show why I think resolving now is premature: if in 3 days Trump shows no interest in rescuing TikTok and they decide to sell, it will have been clear this was a temporary and not final decision. Alternatively, if Trump shows no willingness to rectify the situation and TikTok is still dark in one month, and still maintain they won't sell, that clearly points to a "shut it down" resolution.
Finally, a few comments have stated that all legal proceedings to overturn the law have ended and thus this should resolve shut it down no matter what. I want to address this directly: it may be true that the law isn't going anywhere, but this doesn't mean the final decision was reached yet. The question creator cannot forsee all possible scenarios (including laws not mattering / not being enforced) and the spirit of the question at its core is whether TikTok is willing to sell (which they have said so many times they won't) or whether they would truly pull out of the U.S. It should have been clear they wont go down without a fight, and with Trump claiming he will give another 90 days (whether or not that is legal), there is still legal maneuvering ongoing. We cannot say with confidence whether either of these outcomes are true yet.
@traders Please note that I am closely tracking the latest development, including the fact that TikTok has "shut down" for U.S. users. Traders should be aware that this does not mean that "shut it down" will resolve YES.
TLDR: This question cannot resolve yet because the fine print states that temporary shutdowns are allowed before TikTok reaches its final decision. The overwhelming public sentiment, including TikTok and our leaders own statements, show that this is not likely final (yet) and they are waiting for Trump to make a decision once he is in power. We will have a clearer idea of the resolution once Trump is in power and decides how he will approach this.
For those who want the long version of my thoughts:
The fine print section of the rules clearly states that TikTok is even allowed to temporarily shutdown, but as long as that isn't likely the "final decision," the question will remain open.
Whether something is the "the final decision" is a little bit subjective, I will admit. Unfortunately there is always going to be a little subjectivity in a question like this. There were/are plenty of other markets on this site for more straightforward questions like whether TikTok will EVER shut down.
But here is my logic at the current time: the TikTok announcement text states that TikTok believes with Trump coming into power, things may change for their future. And I think the vast majority of the public does not see this as the "final state" at this time. I think once Trump decides what he is going to do, we will have a clearer picture here about what TikTok's intentions are.
Let me give another example to show why I think resolving now is premature: if in 3 days Trump shows no interest in rescuing TikTok and they decide to sell, it will have been clear this was a temporary and not final decision. Alternatively, if Trump shows no willingness to rectify the situation and TikTok is still dark in one month, and still maintain they won't sell, that clearly points to a "shut it down" resolution.
Finally, a few comments have stated that all legal proceedings to overturn the law have ended and thus this should resolve shut it down no matter what. I want to address this directly: it may be true that the law isn't going anywhere, but this doesn't mean the final decision was reached yet. The question creator cannot forsee all possible scenarios (including laws not mattering / not being enforced) and the spirit of the question at its core is whether TikTok is willing to sell (which they have said so many times they won't) or whether they would truly pull out of the U.S. It should have been clear they wont go down without a fight, and with Trump claiming he will give another 90 days (whether or not that is legal), there is still legal maneuvering ongoing. We cannot say with confidence whether either of these outcomes are true yet.
@mint really now? Description frames "The law gives TikTok up to a year to be divested." and "final" appears to be in that context. The deadline was not extended, and bytedance was thus forced to make a decision.
Your new claim about what "final" means is impossible to cleanly resolve because when is anything in the world "final" in the sense that nothing else could happen later. Plus I find it in bad taste that this is happening AFTER the shutdown.
@mint plus you're stretching the definition of "legal proceedings" and shifting to the word "maneuvering" which is not the same
@mint as to the spirit of the question, the title says "if the tiktok ban takes effect" and it's dang well clear that it has taken effect.
@JamesBaker3 Let me address each point:
as to the spirit of the question, the title says "if the tiktok ban takes effect" and it's dang well clear that it has taken effect.
This is the conditional statement that decides whether or not the question will resolve N/A. I also dispute that it is "dang well clear" that it has taken effect. Maybe in terms of the letter of the law it has taken effect, but part of "taken effect" also depends on enforcement. Joe Biden has said he will not enforce the law, and he is still President. The only scenario I could see where this question still resolves N/A is if the law is repealed before being enforced, or it is simply never enforced and "TikTok is allowed to operate in a structure substantially similar to its current structure" (per the rules). Of course, I never anticipated as question creator that laws would simply be ignored, but this seems like the resolution that would be most in the most spirit of the rules, if that scenario happened.
plus you're stretching the definition of "legal proceedings" and shifting to the word "maneuvering" which is not the same
Actually, "legal proceedings" is not mentioned in the actual resolution criteria, this was just an example of the type of legal challenges that would result in the question not resolving. (note that legal proceedings is only mentioned after "For example". "If this timeline is extended due to legal challenges, the question won't resolve until ByteDance makes (or is forced to make) its final decision." My interpretation is that legal challenges are still ongoing. TikTok challenges that them still operating is a matter of the First Amendment, even if there is not current legal proceeding.
The deadline was not extended, and bytedance was thus forced to make a decision.
This is debatable because the next President plans on extending the deadline by 90 days. Whether or not this is legal is another question. That is why I suggest we wait and see what happens in the coming days.
Your new claim about what "final" means is impossible to cleanly resolve because when is anything in the world "final" in the sense that nothing else could happen later. Plus I find it in bad taste that this is happening AFTER the shutdown.
This is a good point, and it is unfortunate it happened this way. But I feel justified because a situation like this is exactly why I added the language about "final decision" - we can debate whether future actions will or won't be the final decision, but I am 100% sure the "shut down" that lasted less than 24 hours was not a final decision. And I did issue a clarification 10 months ago that is helpful in this case.
To clarify: the "Fine print" section of the description says that if there are legal challenges, this market end date will just be extended until there is a final decision, either made by ByteDance or forced upon them by a court. If the bill becomes law but is blocked in court, we wait for those legal challenges to be settled, and presumably ByteDance will eventually be forced to divest or block U.S. users.
Emphasis on "presumably" and "eventually" added. There are a lot unknowns that could happen, and this clarification doesn't make any claim like "immediately after the legal challenges are settled this market will resolve". It explicitly allows additional time (eventually) for us to be in the final state where ByteDance will either divest or block U.S. users, which I am confident has not happened yet.
@mint If anyone nags you to resolve early, delay another week instead. Naggers care about freeing up mana more than accuracy and are destructive to the entire ecosystem. Far better to have a late but definitive resolution than a fast one that might be wrong.
Given that there are no "credible ongoing legal proceedings to overturn the law" after the supreme Court already rules, and "ByteDance disallows U.S. users from accessing TikTok" has in fact happened, can this be resolved now?
I read the spirit of "if the bill is overturned" to mean before "TikTok finalizes its decision" so I think this should resolve as "shut it down" YES regardless of what happens later after the shutdown decision has been made and the condition met.
@Snarflak 1st amendment. 5th amendment. And it’s basically a bill of attainder as it targets a specific company.
@redacted Which part of the 1st amendment does it infringe? It's not limiting anyone's speech, if that's what you're implying. How does it violate the 5th amendment? How is it a bill of attainder? Just stating things doesn't make them true.
@Snarflak It’s forcing the sale or shutdown of a communications platform? Good luck getting someone to buy it cause anti-trust concerns.
5th - the government cannot take your property without accusing and convicting you of a crime
Bill of attainder - this one is pretty obvious.
Three federal courts already ruled on prior executive actions. TikTok spent a billion moving all its data hosting to Texas with Oracle.
“It’s not limiting anyone’s speech” - just saying things don’t make them true.
@Snarflak Yes, just saying something doesn't make it true. To understand why it violates the First Amendment, I would start by reading how Montana's Tiktok bill was found in violation of it: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23820566-tiktok-v-montana
5th - the government cannot take your property without accusing and convicting you of a crime
That applies to foreign companies?
What property are they "taking" by banning a platform?
Bill of attainder - this one is pretty obvious.
Not at all.
“It’s not limiting anyone’s speech” - just saying things don’t make them true.
This isn't banning any speech. It's banning a foreign-owned platform. The people who use that platform are free to speak exactly the same things anywhere else.
@Snarflak Bruv. Companies have shareholders. There are plenty of American shareholder in Bytedance / TikTok LLC.
“60% of ByteDance is owned by global institutional investors such as the Carlyle Group, General Atlantic and Susquehanna International Group, while 20% of the firm is owned by Zhang and 20% owned by employees around the world. Three of the company’s five board members are Americans”
If you’d even opened the doc Paul posted you’d see a summary review that’s like 3 pages.
I’ve got no idea why you’re so opinionated on this while dismissing all the nuance here. We spoon fed you the argument, you just don’t wanna open your mouth.
@redacted If it was clearly and obviously unconstitutional, the prediction market would not be at 48% (and they probably wouldn't have wasted so much effort passing it.)
@SemioticRivalry Thanks for pointing this out. Looks like easy mana to be had.
Congress has passed plenty of laws for political theatre. They had to tag this one onto the Ukraine aid - not exactly a ringing endorsement of political process.
@redacted Why did TikTok create a massive multi-year lobbying operation to try to convince Congress to not enact the ban if it is obviously unconstitutional and will be defeated in court?
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/31/tiktok-bytedance-spent-millions-on-lobbying-congress.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/tiktok-china-lobbying-washington-00154232
@SemioticRivalry Because it’s super expensive to fight legal battles? Because the US may short circuit constitution by claiming national security? There’s a bunch of reasons and now this will take years and years.
Why is the ACLU on TikTok’s side if this is obviously a lost cause? Why has no concrete evidence been provided of abuse by TikTok to justify national security concerns?
It’s madness to not just write a data privacy law that says what’s allowed and what’s not.
@redacted Easy legal battles don't cost the tens of millions that TikTok has already spent trying to lobby the federal government.
I didn't say it was obviously a lost cause.
@SemioticRivalry Discovery alone is going to cost them tens of millions easily - how does one disprove a “national security” concern without basically dredging the company?
Edit: I never said it was easy. I just said obviously unconstitutional.
@redacted Did the Montana lawsuit cost TikTok tens of millions?
I'm definitely not a lawyer, but it seems like you're kind of squaring the circle, where the lawsuit is both a 100% easy victory for TikTok, and yet simultaneously will be extremely difficult to prove and will cost astronomical amounts of money and time. It seems unlikely that both of these things are true.
@SemioticRivalry It’s a totally different beast. You can’t argue national security at the state level. That’s the get out of jail free card for Federal Government and that’s what makes it expensive.
Without that, it’s an easy case. The national security argument has been adulterated to basically anything (e.g., tariffs under Trump, etc). Does that make more sense to you?
Edit: forgot to mention that a judge stopped the ban in Montana before it ever went to court. It hasn’t gone to court yet.
@redacted I feel like if you can see that it's such a bad case with such high probability, a judge should be able to make the same conclusion without such extensive proceedings.
@redacted why not?
It seems like I have basically all the evidence showing that it's a serious case (prediction markets, tiktok taking it seriously, legal commentators taking it seriously) versus your word so I'm inclined to think it's serious
@SemioticRivalry Strawmanning much? This is the second or third time you’ve painted my position as something it’s not. This is my last comment here as I don’t believe you or snarf are engaging in good faith.
Who is arguing it’s not “serious”?
Not sure how to be more clear that my position is that it’s (1) unconstitutional and (2) because it’s at the federal level the “national security” element means it’s basically a witch trial.
@redacted you are the one who said it's "pretty wildly unconstitutional and won't hold up unless you get a redacted judge."
@redacted I'm not opinionated about this. I don't think it violates 1st Amendment, but otherwise I'm just asking for you to justify your strong opinions.
If you’d even opened the doc Paul posted
How else would I know it has 62 pages?