>

Nationalization threshold is at majority amount of shares.
It's possible China still hasn't hit that threshold for those companies but acquired sufficient enough shares to be considered "major investors" and thus has more say than before in how those companies should operate.
Are we supposed to have been assuming the intentions of these corporations were neutral before they were invested in by the CCP? >

It means the Party just wants more control.
And i think it's safe to assume they were trying to balance Party and profit before, which the former does not like. >

Every powerful entity wants more power and control. That's just the nature of the beast
No different than Amazon or the US government. We just have to be vigilant about allowing aforeign power control >

The US government owns Amazon? 
Oh wait, no they don't. >

It's more like Amazon owns the US government. >

Please, American companies may have outsized influence thanks to lobbying, but they don't have any actual power. If the US congress decided it was time for amazon to go, (and the courts allowed it because rule of law exists) then there would nothing amazon could do about it. >

Your daily reminder that 'China' owns 5%  of reddit. >

Holy fuck >

Yeah, Xi hates being compared to Winnie-the-Pooh on Reddit, and we definitely should never discuss how Xi looks like Winnie-the-Pooh. >

just the fact you and everyone else can say it without troubles show these 5% doesn't mean much right now.
It could change but for now it's fine >

You should see how the news on Uyghur forced labour camps is moderated. But you won't because they're banned and muted before anyone can see it (probably just like this post). >

idk if anyone’s been on Reddit long enough they’ve probably seen thousands of Uyghur posts, where we all circlejerk about how Chinese people eat Muslim babies. 
then move onto the next post where we discuss how Europe is being ruined by Muslim immigration, and they should be forcibly detained and sent back to where the came from to preserve Han - oops, sorry I mean Western - values >

Nice camouflaged whataboutism, you're a good functionaire >

A mere utensil of his master's will >

This has already been happening, I guess they just wanted to make it official. >

Why is this a problem? Are you serious?
Some American companies have ties to the government. They are still independent and not under the governments control.
Where as companies in China have a position for the CCP. A lot of tech companies have CCP members on the board to dictate what the company does and now they are buying a portion of the company to solidify control.
If you don't see the CCP increasing its control of companies as an issue then that's on you. >

It's an issue cause the Chinese govt will and already has censored content in games. Try to find references to Tibet in games sold in China.
It doesn't happen. Goes against free creative process. Plus you know concentration camps >

i think there are more dangerous things related to this than game censorship >

Sure but censorship is dangerous too >

It's actually pretty clever. By buying shares, it's a legitimate takeover that won't spook off investors from future projects, but at the same time gives the government a big say in how the business should be managed >

didn't the CCP force Jack Ma to go into hiding, and recently relinquish decision-making power over his companies? >

The CCP already has de facto control over large corporations like ANT group and Tencent >

No.... wait, wait, wait.... Im going to need some time to process this bombshell.... >

Im shock too i thought they got the influence even without the share. >

Chinese corporations with alot of employees always have the party members create an internal committee that then interacts directly with the C-C-P government for communications and business/opportunities that naturally empowers the committee when dealing with the corporation. By such defacto situations the C-C-P automatically has significant influence and internal data on many businesses but securing shares of a valuable corporation and board seats makes the control that much stronger. Jack Ma was already squeezed (they disappeared him for some months) for control of Alibaba and ANT being publicly blocked after he criticized the C-C-Ps antiquated banking system calling them basically stupid. It was just a matter of time after this successful strong arming they go after more control of ANT and TENCENT considering their powerful positions of these businesses over Chinese society. >

We call this nationalization. >

I think Nationalisation isn't all bad. For services like power generation, poles and wires, water and sewerage - government control ensures all areas have quality access and not just the most profitable ones.
Ofc, Tencent is not a service - so I guess it's a moot point. >

They don’t need to buy its all theirs lol >

It's only ten cent really cheap.. >

Buy one, get two free, lah. >

Partial nationalization? Perhaps this is part of a gradual process whereby Deng’s reforms are gradually retired and the Party takes more direct control of economy again. That’s clearly what Xi has been working toward, though he has only really taken baby steps towards it so far. I think the interpretation of the goal to be a “modern socialist state” in 2035 is still going to involve a lot of private enterprise, but with government intervention. >

This was always Deng's plan as well so it makes sense. >

Yeah, it’s so bizarre that everyone seems to think that Deng was genuinely some capitalist and Xi is turning his plan upside down. It’s not some secret: Jiang and Hu and Xi have all opined about this openly for decades. It’s like the old adage about the definition of Asia: a country is in Asia if you can be an expert on it without speaking its predominant language >

One thing we got to give China props for is that they know how to keep their giant companies and dipshit billionaires in line. >

The guys doing this are billionaires too >

The Chinese government doesn't have to buy shares to have a direct impact on the decision making process of Chinese based businesses. >

Clearly they do, or at least the CCP thinks they do.
We already know the CCP passes laws specifically targeting corporations in China to get them to do things the way they want to, and we also know in the last decade a number of these have been specifically targeting tech companies. They grew rather explosively and the CCP is justifiably worried about the influence of these companies. 
The government taking stakes in companies has a number of potential consequences for these companies’ influence internationally which means the CCP thinks more official control over these companies outweighs those consequences. >

Yes, that’s where part of their indirect influence comes from. Doesn’t really change that CCP is clearly worried that this indirect is no longer enough to control the companies, otherwise there would be no reason for the CCP to need to buy shares in those countries. >

Wake up America to what Tik tok actually is >

Nationalization with fewer steps ? Or more steps ? Really confused about this one.