TikTok's algorithm could be split, the report claims, using a US-only version to try out the hugely popular app. to avoid a ban.
Developer Bytedance tweeted that the report is inaccurate, but his message appears to be more of a restatement of his legal position than a specific rebuttal …
Forced sale of TikTok to an American company
Back in March, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to either ban TikTok in the US or force the sale of the app to an American company. The Senate supported the forced sale option, and President Biden signed the bill.
TikTok claims this action is unconstitutional and is suing the US government to invalidate the decision. TikTok creators have filed their own lawsuit. The official lawsuit has been expedited so that it can be reviewed before the deadline.
Tiktok Algorithm Question
Although the sale may be blocked by the court, American investors are preparing for a buyout.
However, the Chinese government has legally blocked the sale of the algorithm to an American company. , and potential investors seem resigned to the fact that they won't get it. The value of an app without an algorithm driving it is questionable, to put it mildly.
Reuters claims Bytedance is working on a US-only version of the algorithm.
TikTok is working on a clone of its recommendation algorithm for its 170 million U.S. users, which could lead to a version that operates independently of its Chinese parent and is more palatable to U.S. lawmakers who want to ban it, according to people with direct knowledge About company. effort.
The source code sharing effort, ordered by TikTok's Chinese parent company ByteDance late last year, comes ahead of a bill to force the sale of TikTok's U.S. operations that began gaining traction in Congress this year.
TikTok Policy account on X called the report inaccurate.
The Reuters article published today is misleading and factually inaccurate. As we said in our lawsuit, a “qualified disposition” of assets; The Act's requirement to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible, from a commercial, technological, or legal standpoint. And certainly not within the 270-day period required by the Law.
However, the company does not say what exactly is wrong, and the language appears to simply restate its position. from the very beginning: that a forced sale cannot occur for both legal and technical reasons.
That last statement is clearly false, since there would be absolutely nothing to stop programmers from creating a new version of the recommendation engine.
