I don't get why they sold it. If the Chinese government really had a say, simply refusing would have been a better option, as Trump would have never dared shutting off an app loved by hundreds of millions of voters.

▲

nirui an hour ago | parent [-]

Wrong.

The definitive factor here is whether the Chinese company wants to put themselves deep in the American political water. To any company, living under a crosshair alone is difficult enough, it becomes even more so when the company is foreign-owned.

The sell was a strategically correct decision by ByteDance, they made money out of it and they secured some future income, at least for a short while. But no app or service lives forever anyways, so it's still a good trade.

Whether or not the sell could benefit actual American users was never mattered.

	▲	throw310822 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I wasn't talking about Bytedance's point of view, but that of the Chinese government. As a private company without state backing, I agree that selling might have been the best decision to maximise their profits. But could have been politically advantageous for China to veto the sale- even if the platform were politically neutral- because it was basically untouchable, as was already proven by years of delay. They might have used it as a bargaining chip, and then I'd be curious to know what they got back.