unnamedprophet

While this sort of quashing of free markets may be permissible for sovereign nations, it comes with a heavy cost. Trump, and by proxy the U.S., moves to force the hand of ByteDance to divest itself of all interest in TikTok at fire sale prices through threat of shutting them down. The U.S. establishes its reputation for stifling competition whenever a strong enough sovereign interest is in play. China, and other countries, will respond in kind to protect their own interests - Tesla, Apple, Intel and whatever other company has a juicy stake in China are held hostage until they concede their interests of to a China state-run company. Imagine trying to do business in another country when the fear of takeover looms overhead if you ever become too successful? This behavior only serves to encourage more protectionist and isolationist markets.

It's about damn time. One of the clearest things on display during Zuckerberg's Senate grilling is that tech as an industry has proportionally smaller influence when compared to other industries (automotive, airline, finance) despite having a larger share of the economic pie. Tech is also a newer player than other companies in those industries, so it's natural that the balance of power has not yet swayed in favor of tech terms of Washington politics. Infiltrating politics through lobbying, advocacy or people in seat doesn't outright necessarily jive with our ideal notions of a democracy but it's the way that the game is played.

Why not just provide both options to drivers? They can choose to be full-time employees, with whatever conditions that demands (e.g. exclusivity, hours, wages), or they can choose to take the independent contractor route, choosing their own hours, having control but being subject to whatever fares Uber wants to levy.

Agree, you take someone's money you have to give up something in return. It's a quid pro quo. To think that only means a hollow stake in the company without strength to influence the company's direction, culture, ethos, or mission is naive. Let the free market speak - if you want to eliminate Chinese or anyone else's investment, buy back their stake at whatever price they demand.

This is no different than what Hollywood already does. E.g. demonizing conservative values as antithetical to a stable government (abortion, gay and lesbian rights, income discrepancy). I recall Hillary Clinton being interviewed by Terry Gross, where she was essentially charged with bigotry in reversing positions on gay marriage. Public sentiment changes in one way as a result of social and media influences, and it's not all in the direction of truth, justice and the American way. It's whomever is pulling the puppet strings (read: funding their personal agendas).

All film and media is propagandistic in some way. Just because you swing the needle in a different direction doesn't change that fact.

This is a terrible policy. These factors aren't subject to being quantified, and thus can't be compared equally.

You can't compare one zip code versus another to say which is geographically more "adverse". Poor white, trailer trash neighborhood vs drug-infested, gang-ridden city streets. Schools with 75% of students on free-lunch vs schools that have suffered mass shootings. Single black mother working as a nurse making $80k a year raising two kids versus Indian single mom who was abused by her husband and filed for divorce and custody.

On the flip side, what message do you tell to a white male from an upper middle class background who is raised in a good school district? He wants to go to an Ivy League. What should he do, how can he prepare?