> "de facto controlled by CCP"

Where is the evidence for this?

The Chinese government directly owns shares of ByteDance. It has representatives of the government working in the company ensuring it takes the "correct political direction": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance#Management

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/03/12/5-things-to-know-abo...

I found the first three alone quite compelling:

> ByteDance is Closely Connected to China’s Military-Industrial Complex

> ByteDance is Bound by Chinese State Surveillance Laws

> ByteDance’s Board is Beholden to Beijing

As evidenced that TikTok would rather shut down than continue to print money in the US

It's common knowledge that the CCP has a lot of control over various companies registered there: https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/reassessing-role...

The above is based on a linked research paper but the numbers may actually be much higher as it can't really account for proxy ownership, various CCP committees influencing these companies, state banks providing loans only for companies that play ball, etc.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/18/tech/tiktok-bytedance-china-o...

> However, like most other Chinese companies, ByteDance is legally compelled to establish an in-house Communist Party committee composed of employees who are party members.

> In 2018, China amended its National Intelligence Law, which requires any organization or citizen to support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence work. > That means ByteDance is legally bound to help with gathering intelligence.

I would say yes.

Where is the evidence for this?

"Another way the Chinese government could assert leverage over a deal involving TikTok would be by exercising its “golden share” in a unit of ByteDance. In such an arrangement, the Chinese government buys a small portion of a company’s equity in exchange for a seat on its board and veto power over certain company decisions.

In 2021, an investment fund controlled by a state-owned entity established by a Chinese internet regulator took a 1 percent stake in a ByteDance subsidiary and appointed a director to its board."

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/17/us/tiktok-ban-suprem...

Committees representing the interests of the Chinese Communist Party exist inside of most major corporations in China. It would not be possible to operate a company like ByteDance without acquiescing to government interference

https://www.seafarerfunds.com/prevailing-winds/party-committ...

You can read about it here: https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/are-private-chinese-companie...

You can read the full "Opinion on Strengthening the United Front Work of the Private Economy in the New Era" here[1] in English, though I suspect you don't need the translation.

Excerpts from what the Party says openly:

> Strengthening united front work in the private economy is an important means by which the Party’s leadership over the private economy is manifested.

> This will help continuously strengthen the Party’s leadership over the private economy, bring the majority of private economy practitioners closer to the Party

> Strengthening united front work in the private economy is an important part of the development and improvement of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics.

> Educate and guide private economy practitioners to arm their minds and guide their practice with Xi Jinping’s Thoughts on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era; maintain a high degree of consistency with the Party Central Committee on political positions, political directions, political principles, and political roads; and always be politically sensible. Further strengthen the Party building work of private enterprises and sincerely give full play to the role of Party organizations (党组织) as battle fortresses and to the vanguard and exemplary role of Party members.

> Enhance ideological guidance: Guide private economy practitioners to increase their awareness of self-discipline; build a strong line of ideological and moral defense; strictly regulate their own words and actions

[1]: https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publi...

China's economic reform didn't quite embrace capitalism the same way many other places did. Their businesses still inherently do not have the same managerial independence that many have come to expect as normal in the rest of the world. While Chinese businesses are allowed to have some private control, the government still exercises control over "private" businesses when they decide they are important or large enough.

Imagine if all Fortune 500 companies were required to have Trump appointees on their boards. That would sound crazy here, but that's how things still work in China.