Connect with us

News

How TikTok’s Chinese owner tightened its grip on the app

Published

on

How TikTok’s Chinese owner tightened its grip on the app

TikTok’s Beijing-based owner ByteDance tightened its grip over its US operations over the past two years, according to company insiders, even as momentum to ban the short-video app grew in Washington.

The US government passed legislation this week aimed at forcing TikTok to divest from its parent or face a countrywide ban, but prising the viral video app from its $268bn parent company would present a formidable challenge.

More than two dozen current and former employees told the Financial Times that TikTok has only become more deeply interwoven with ByteDance as tensions over the app’s ownership escalated.

These people said that ByteDance staff, including senior managers, had been transferred to TikTok; workers based in the US who spoke Mandarin were favoured for their ability to co-ordinate with Chinese counterparts; and restructuring efforts had targeted US-based workers who did not meet exacting performance standards.

“There’s this sort of veneer or facade that these two companies are separate,” said Joël Carter, a former US ads policy manager who left in August 2023. “Really, they’re one and the same.”

Advertisement

Ten current and former employees said the number of Chinese staff had been increasing inside TikTok over the past two years, with ByteDance transferring workers from China to other global offices, including in the US.

This has included senior leaders. Last year, ByteDance moved Qing Lan from Douyin, its Chinese version of the short video app, to head up TikTok’s small and medium-sized business advertising arm in the US, an appointment first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

The insiders mostly spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation by the company, which can claw back bonuses and stock awards if staffers breach non-disparagement rules, according to documents seen by the FT.

These claims come after TikTok executives at one point insisted under oath that it was a “distributed” company with no official global headquarters. Its website suggests TikTok’s headquarters are in Los Angeles and Singapore, with no offices in China, and that decisions are not made in Beijing.

In a statement, TikTok said: “Like any global company, we have employees around the world and employees move around over the course of their career to meet business needs. This is neither a recent development, nor is it unique to TikTok.”

It added: “The premise and the statements in this story are flawed and based on anonymous sources who are spreading falsehoods in pursuit of a personal agenda. Any journalist would know this has failed the journalistic standard of putting forward actual facts.”

Advertisement

The company has vowed to mount a legal battle against the US legislation while the Chinese government has said it would oppose a sale.

Any divestment will be difficult. Documents from 2023 seen by the FT show ByteDance staff based in China on teams such as safety product operations reporting directly to US-based leaders and some global staff reporting directly to China-based bosses.

“They are overriding our local decisions [and] demoting American leadership,” said one current senior US employee.

Several US employees said colleagues who worked on product management and did not speak Mandarin said they were often at a disadvantage because the role required close co-ordination with engineers in China.

They added that this was not an issue for some roles such as advertising sales. Two current insiders said they had been told to prioritise hiring Chinese or Mandarin-speaking staff in the US.

Advertisement
Shou Zi Chew, chief executive of TikTok © Bryan van der Beek/Bloomberg

Many US workers complained of long work hours and an opaque performance review system in which they allege leaders manipulate employees’ assessments in order to meet preset targets and facilitate restructurings.

The moves are in part because ByteDance executives believe that TikTok is not performing as effectively as its Chinese operations, suggesting American employees have a lower output than counterparts in China, according to one senior person familiar with the leadership’s thinking. 

The push came as ByteDance was moving towards a blockbuster initial public offering, seeking to impress investors with TikTok’s explosive growth. TikTok hit a record $16bn in sales in the US in 2023, the FT reported last month.

But across congressional hearings, TikTok executives were grilled by US politicians who alleged that the Chinese Communist party could access the data of the app’s 170mn American users for espionage purposes under national intelligence laws, or proliferate propaganda or election interference.

In January, TikTok chief executive Shou Zi Chew insisted US user data had been moved “out of reach” from China to a firewalled cloud structure built in a $1.5bn partnership with Oracle, known as “Project Texas”. 

Advertisement

Many current and former TikTok workers point to other instances, however, in which the company continues to take direction from ByteDance.

Basic processes such as signing off of music used for adverts or addressing technical glitches have required co-ordination with counterparts in China, several people said.

Policy and content moderation decisions have been a flashpoint. According to three former staff members familiar with the matter, TikTok’s trust and safety team has previously been at loggerheads with staff in China over content featuring the popular dance move twerking.

Chinese leaders have deemed twerking too sexually suggestive, demanding it be taken down or rendered harder to find, the people said, while their US counterparts have repeatedly pushed back.

TikTok said ByteDance staff in China were not involved in trust and safety decisions, which were handled out of the US and Ireland.

Advertisement

Internal systems — such as for staff to communicate, collaborate or access employment information — are hosted in China, TikTok insiders said. But they said the software could also track employee locations through their IP addresses and other biometric data.

The company has also had complaints that it is hostile to women and minorities and been hit by a number of discrimination-related lawsuits and complaints in recent months.

This includes one from Carter, who has alleged he was retaliated against by TikTok after complaining of racial discrimination in a filing with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. TikTok has previously said that it takes “employee concerns very seriously, and [has] strong policies in place that prohibit discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace”.

In February, TikTok’s former global marketing head in the US Katie Puris alleged in a lawsuit she was fired because some company executives, including ByteDance chair Lidong Zhang, believed she “lacked the docility and meekness specifically required of female employees”. TikTok has not commented on the lawsuit.

There have been attempts to ease tensions. One document circulated among some TikTok staff last year suggests that “high power distance” — the acceptance of hierarchical power as part of society — is common in China. By contrast, “low power distance” — which asserts that inequality in society should be minimised — is common in the US and the UK, for example.

Advertisement

In sometimes broken English, the document urged employees to take these differences into account when working with people overseas and “try to show our sincerity by changing our own habits and balancing cultural values between us”.

Many remain unconvinced by such efforts. One recent TikTok staffer said: “There are jokes internally that, if you’ve stayed more than two years, you’ve stayed a lifetime.”

Additional reporting by Ryan McMorrow in Beijing

News

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

Published

on

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

transcript

transcript

Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”

Advertisement
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston

December 17, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Published

on

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

transcript

transcript

Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.

Advertisement
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

By Shawn Paik

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending