Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s Gambit: Trade Tariff Relief For a TikTok Sale

Opinion

Trump’s Gambit: Trade Tariff Relief For a TikTok Sale

TikTok icon on a phone.

Getty Images, 5./15 WEST

You know things aren’t going well in the negotiations for the U.S. operations of TikTok when President Trump has to bribe the Chinese government with billions in tariff relief.

But that’s exactly what was reported out of the White House. President Trump is willing to give the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) billions in tariff relief if they pressured TikTok to sell its U.S. operations before the April 5th deadline.


What this indicates—ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, of its own volition has no desire to sell its U.S. operations.

The question: Can Donald Trump bribe the CCP into forcing ByteDance to sell?

It is worth stated: President Trump’s gambit has merit. Any company doing business in China, especially one based in China, does so under the oversight of the CCP. So, theoretically Trump’s tariff relief could sway the CCP to act on his behalf as his advocate with ByteDance ownership.

The downside: Donald Trump had to sweeten the pot considerably to get a deal done.

It should tell everyone ByteDance ownership’s doesn’t intend to sell its U.S. TikTok operations. Only under extreme duress (threats of retribution) by the CCP is any deal possible. But, even then it’s a crap shoot.

The same fundamental conditions exist as before.

ByteDance is a global business. What’s more, its business model is predicated on the success of its TikTok product line and that product line’s success is directly tied to TikTok’s algorithm.

Ultimately, it’s all about TikTok’s algorithm.

At stake for ByteDance, if they sell their U.S. operations in TikTok, is opening the door to competition to their entire global enterprise. It’s a bad deal for ByteDance.

After all, Intellectual Property (IP) is the lifeblood of every technology company. ByteDance’s TikTok is no different. It’s why one would expect ByteDance to do everything in its power to protect its IP, its algorithm, even if they have to stand up to the CCP.

Still, one can’t under estimate the influence of the CCP.

It’s been reported, the CCP has frozen all state business with CK-Hutchison Holdings after the Hong Kong based conglomerate agreed to sell it majority held stake in the two ports bordering the Panama Canal to U.S. based BlackRock.

Purportedly, the CCP was not happy with the deal and has engaged in retaliatory actions against CK-Hutchison Holdings.

President Trump’s tariff gambit is likely seeking to take advantage of the CCP’s willingness to pressure companies into making business decisions that benefit China.

With the April 5th deadline fast approaching—we will know shortly if President Trump’s gambit pays off.

If it does it came at a steep price.

Dan Butterfield is the author of 11 E-books written under Occam’s Razor by Dan Butterfield. A list of publications: “Cultural Revolution,” “Prosecutorial Misconduct,” “Benghazi—The Cover-Up,” “The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming,” “Treason,” “11 Days,” “First Premise,” “GOP’s Power Grab,” “Guilty,” “Comey’s Deceit,” and “False Narratives.”


Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less