News: 1612337290

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

ByteDance sues Tencent over lack of link love on its messaging services

(2021/02/03)


ByteDance, the Chinese company that makes TikTok, has sued local rival Tencent for alleged monopoly practices.

In a complaint [1]posted to Sina Weibo, the company alleges that Tencent’s WeChat and QQ messaging services won’t allow links to content on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.

[2]

The complaint points out that Tencent has more than a billion users, so disallowing Douyin content looks a bit like exercising monopoly power.

Douyin and ByteDance want Tencent to stop it and pay $14m by way of compensation, so have sent the matter to a Beijing court.

[3]

Facebook crushed rivals to maintain an illegal monopoly, the entire United States yells in Zuckerberg’s face [4]MEANWHILE ...

ByteDance’s preferred remedy is interesting in the context of China’s recent introduction of [5]new anti-monopoly laws designed in part to bring the nation’s internet giants into line.

Tencent has said it will counter-sue.

Complicating matters further, Douyin on Monday [6]said it will not allow financial services and medical influencers who use its platform to share their work on WeChat or QQ, because it doesn’t want promotions for dodgy products to reach other platforms.

That prohibition is in line with China’s renewed emphasis on consumer safety.

[7]

The case against Tencent means ByteDance has troubles at home to go with its [8]fight to keep TikTok alive in the USA , [9]class action lawsuit in the UK and what looks a lot like a [10]permanent ban in India . ®

Get our [11]Tech Resources



[1] https://weibo.com/6020086612/K06Z74WUn?from=page_1006066020086612_profile&wvr=6&mod=weibotime&type=comment#_rnd1612333773690

[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_personal_tech/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YBqCSRoyVk77zzy4VJ@3igAAAIw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0

[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_personal_tech/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YBqCSRoyVk77zzy4VJ@3igAAAIw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[4] https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/09/facebook_crushed_competitors_to_maintain/

[5] https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/11/china_antitrust_for_internet_revision/

[6] https://weibo.com/6020086612/JFU9ZgDsQ?from=page_1006066020086612_profile&wvr=6&mod=weibotime&type=comment#_rnd1612335778804

[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_personal_tech/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YBqCSRoyVk77zzy4VJ@3igAAAIw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/04/us_china_news_roundup/

[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/07/tiktok_high_court_class_action/

[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/28/india_china_app_ban_permanent/

[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/

Fortune's Rules for Memo Wars: #2

Given the incredible advances in sociocybernetics and telepsychology over
the last few years, we are now able to completely understand everything that
the author of an memo is trying to say. Thanks to modern developments
in electrocommunications like notes, vnews, and electricity, we have an
incredible level of interunderstanding the likes of which civilization has
never known. Thus, the possibility of your misinterpreting someone else's
memo is practically nil. Knowing this, anyone who accuses you of having
done so is a liar, and should be treated accordingly. If you *do* understand
the memo in question, but have absolutely nothing of substance to say, then
you have an excellent opportunity for a vicious ad hominem attack. In fact,
the only *inappropriate* times for an ad hominem attack are as follows:

1: When you agree completely with the author of an memo.
2: When the author of the original memo is much bigger than you are.
3: When replying to one of your own memos.