Twitter reportedly the latest company interested in acquiring the Chinese owned social video app TikTok,
They will sue the Trump Administration this week for the ban.
The story of TikTok, which is very popular with young online users, and very colorful.
Applications that started in China known as Douyin,
Bytedance has denied spying on behalf of the Chinese government
And has set up a separate branch in the US to appease critics,
But with little success in stopping criticism.
President Donald Trump has threatened to ban applications in the US for weeks.
And the government will finally follow up the process to ban this Thursday.
For all intents and purposes, ban TikTok within 45 days if it doesn’t find a new owner
otherwise, the U.S. would prohibit “any transaction by anyone” with ByteDance.
But it could also mean that even simply downloading the app would be considered a transaction.
Microsoft Corp. was the first major US company to show interest in acquiring TikTok from ByteDance last week.
The exact status of the talks is still unknown apart from what they have yet to come to an agreement.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates has firmly said he is against the possibility of the acquisition
and said the acquisition would be a “poison chalice” for the US industry.
Microsoft says it’s not a simple game,
because Microsoft has to compete at a new level
Twitter, which owned Vine was acquired in 2012 for $ 30 million before shutting down service in 2016,
It is said to have held initial talks with ByteDance regarding a possible acquisition.
TechCrunch reports that there are serious questions about whether a deal is possible,
Given that Twitter may not have the ability or investor support to raise the funds it needs
Whether the ban stands is another matter.
According to the South China Morning Post, TikTok intends to file a federal lawsuit as soon as Tuesday.
The lawsuit will argue that the president’s action is unconstitutional,
Because it failed to give the company a chance to respond,
And that the U.S. government’s national-security justification for the order is baseless.