Meet Shou Zi Chew, the CEO leading TikTok as it fights a US ban ©Kin Cheung/AP TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is the company's public face, rallying its fans and testifying before Congress. He went to Harvard Business School and interned at Facebook when it was a startup. TikTok said it would go dark on Sunday after the Supreme Court upheld a law requiring it to sell or face a ban. TikTok is under a lot of pressure right now. As US lawmakers worry the video-sharing platform, which is owned by Chinese company ByteDance, poses a danger to national security, TikTok is scrambling to fight a law requiring it be sold to a US owner by January 19 or else risk being banned in the country. TikTok said it would "go dark" for American users on the scheduled deadline after the US Supreme Court upheld the law. So, who's leading the company through this turbulent period? That would be Shou Zi Chew, TikTok's CEO from Singapore, who got his start as an intern at Facebook. Here's a rundown on TikTok's head honcho: See more Trump said Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Trump said Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images © Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Trump said the new 54% tariffs on China have given him "great power" to negotiate a TikTok deal. He said he would be willing to lower tariffs if countries gave him something "phenomenal." TikTok's April 5 divest-or-ban deadline edges even closer, with no buyer deal confirmed. President Donald Trump is once again waving a tariff reduction carrot at China to get it to cave on a TikTok deal. Jim Rickards: New Economic Boom Starting In May (act Fast) Paradigm Press Jim Rickards: New Economic Boom Starting In May (act Fast) Ad Trump spoke to reporters on Air Force One on Thursday, a day after imposing a baseline 10% tariff on imports from all countries and increasing China's tariff rate to 54%. He said he would be open to cutting deals with countries over the tariffs, only if they're willing to give the US "something that's so phenomenal." "For instance, with TikTok as an example, we have the situation with TikTok, where China will probably say, 'We'll approve a deal, but will you do something on the tariff?'" Trump said. "The tariffs give us great power to negotiate, always have," he added. When another reporter asked if he was in talks with China to grant tariff relief in exchange for a deal on TikTok, Trump replied that he was not. Trump has previously floated the possibility of using tariffs to negotiate a TikTok deal with China. In a press conference on March 26, Trump said China will have to "play a role" in TikTok's sale, "possibly in the form of an approval." This Veteran Tribute Glass Is the Ideal Choice to Pay Tribute to Every Great Vet YOFANY This Veteran Tribute Glass Is the Ideal Choice to Pay Tribute to Every Great Vet Ad "Maybe I'll give them a little reduction in tariffs or something to get it done, you know, because every point in tariffs is worth more money than TikTok," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. This comes as TikTok's divest-or-ban deadline, slated for April 5, edges closer. In April 2024, the Senate passed a law ordering TikTok's Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell its stake in the social media platform or have it banned in the US. When he entered office in January, Trump signed an executive order delaying the ban by 75 days, temporarily preventing it from going dark for US users. In the last few months, several parties have indicated interest in acquiring TikTok, like Trump's former treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, Reddit cofounder Alexis Ohanian, former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, and YouTuber MrBeast. There have also been reports of several eleventh-hour bids from Amazon and the owner of adult content site OnlyFans to buy the platform. New $47 Monocular Better Than $3000 Telescopes? Top20GadgetDeals New $47 Monocular Better Than $3000 Telescopes? Ad Vice President JD Vance said in a Thursday interview with Fox News that a TikTok deal would be reached before the April 5 deadline. Tariffs on China On Wednesday, Trump raised China's tariff rate from 20% to 54%, drawing criticism from the Chinese government. Trump first imposed a 10% tariff on Chinese goods in February before doubling it to 20% in March. While on the campaign trail last year, Trump said he would impose tariffs of more than 60% tariffs on goods from China if elected. China swiftly retaliated to both rounds of Trump's tariffs. In February, China imposed a 10% tariff on crude oil and agricultural equipment and a 15% tariff on coal and liquefied natural gas. In March, China placed a 10% tariff on soybeans, pork, and beef imports from the US, as well as a 15% tariff on chicken and cotton imports. In response to Trump's increased tariffs on Wednesday, China's Commerce Ministry said in a statement it will "resolutely take countermeasures to safeguard its own rights and interests." "Trade wars have no winners, and protectionism has no way out. The Chinese side urges the US to immediately lift its unilateral tariff measures and properly resolve differences with trading partners through equal dialogue," it added. As of press time, China has not announced any retaliatory measures. Representatives for Trump did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment