U.S. Consortium Poised to Take 80% Control of TikTok’s U.S. Arm

The U.S. and China are nearing a TikTok deal that puts a new U.S. entity in charge, with Oracle, Silver Lake, and Andreessen Horowitz among investors. U.S. investors would hold about 80% of the venture, with Chinese shareholders owning the rest. A Trump–Xi call is slated to help finalize the agreement amid broader U.S.–China tensions.

Key Points

• A U.S. investor consortium led by Oracle, Silver Lake, and Andreessen Horowitz would control TikTok’s U.S. business.
• The framework would create a new U.S. entity with about an 80% U.S. ownership stake and the remainder held by Chinese shareholders.
• U.S. and Chinese negotiators met in Madrid to advance the deal.
• President Trump and China’s Xi Jinping plan to speak to help finalize the agreement.
• The talks unfold against heightened tensions over trade, tariffs, and chips.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment of the Hacker News discussion is overwhelmingly negative and highly critical of the proposed TikTok deal. Commenters express deep cynicism, distrust, and concern regarding Oracle's involvement, the implications of government oversight, potential censorship, media consolidation, and the hypocrisy of the U.S. government's actions compared to its stated values. The sentiment is that the deal represents a move towards increased state control and corporate power rather than a genuine solution to national security concerns.

In Agreement

• The deal is a necessary step for the U.S. to 'take back control' of information flow, particularly after TikTok challenged established narratives during events like the Gaza conflict, which dealt 'a serious blow to the Western consensus manufacturing apparatus.'
• Banning TikTok entirely was politically unfeasible due to its popularity, making a 'deal' the second-best option to address national security concerns regarding an adversarial state controlling speech.
• The U.S. government's intent behind the ban was indeed rooted in digital privacy and later broadened to controlling narratives, especially when China would not censor content related to the Gaza conflict, indicating a perceived need for U.S. control over its information environment.
• Transferring U.S. user data to Oracle infrastructure within the U.S. is seen as a safeguard, building on existing initiatives like 'Project Texas' to protect user data from foreign adversaries.
• Having Oracle control TikTok's U.S. operations could be a 'massively good step forward' from a national security perspective, addressing the original concerns about Chinese influence.

Opposed

• Many users express profound distrust of Oracle and its CEO Larry Ellison, viewing them as worse or equally bad custodians of the platform compared to the Chinese government, citing fears of aggressive licensing, lawsuits, and corporate exploitation.
• The inclusion of a U.S. government-appointed director on the board is heavily criticized as hypocritical, equating it to state-controlled media or a 'political commissar,' which undermines U.S. claims of free markets and open speech while mirroring authoritarian tactics.
• The deal is seen as a move towards massive media consolidation by politically aligned billionaires (Larry Ellison, David Ellison, Andreessen Horowitz), leading to fears of a 'hostile takeover of the American mind' and increased political propaganda biased towards the current administration's views, particularly regarding Israel.
• The creation of a separate U.S.-specific TikTok app, cut off from global content and users, is predicted to significantly diminish the app's value, turn it into an 'echo chamber,' or cause it to 'fade into obscurity' due to a loss of diversity and appeal.
• Commenters question the sincerity of the national security rationale, viewing the deal as political maneuvering that contradicts 'free market' principles and could lead to U.S. government surveillance and prosecution of its own citizens for speech, making data storage in China potentially preferable for some.
• The forced divestiture is seen as an anti-free market action that discourages foreign investment in the U.S. tech sector, punishing successful companies for their origin rather than actual security threats, and setting a dangerous precedent for government interference in private enterprise.