TikTok, a popular social networking app similar to the now-defunct Vine, has recently come under fire from President Trump, who in August announced his intention to ban the Chinese-owned app in the United States under national security grounds. The deadline for the ban has been repeatedly extended as companies like Microsoft, Walmart, and Oracle scramble to acquire TikTok’s US operations.
Yet controversy surrounding TikTok goes back further than this year. The company has repeatedly engaged in downright reprehensible behavior, forgoing Western values like freedom of speech and equality in pursuit of never-ending growth. While American companies like Facebook and Twitter have been criticized by Republicans in congress for allegedly censoring conservative voices, TikTok’s rules go even further, removing content showing underprivileged people, as well as those with autism, obesity, and other visible disabilities.
The company feared that displaying people with undesirable visual attributes would reduce user engagement. User engagement measures the amount of time a typical user spends on the app, a critical metric for companies like TikTok, which rely primarily on ad revenue. By prioritizing rich and beautiful users, the company sought to increase the amount of time the average user spent on the app, and therefore increase the value of the company.
TikTok employed moderators to flag content displaying these features. Flagged content was not removed, but it wouldn’t be shown on the app’s “for you” page, which uses artificial intelligence to find content a user is most likely to enjoy. While flagged posts would still appear on a content creator’s individual page, the spread of such content was vastly reduced.
TikTok claimed that it instituted this policy to prevent bullying. By requiring users to specifically seek out content from disabled people, TikTok hoped to limit unscrupulous users from using it as a platform for hate. Still, Liam Hackett, a British anti-bullying activist, saw it another way, telling the BBC, “it is concerning that young people with disabilities have been actively excluded from participating on a platform that prides itself as being fun and inclusive.” After widespread public outcry, TikTok discontinued the practice.
Even after revising its content policies, TikTok continues to censor content it finds objectionable. Posts about the Tiananmen Square massacre, where Chinese soldiers killed up to 10,000 pro-government protesters in Beijing, continue to be banned, as well as discussion about Taiwanese and Tibetan independence. Discussion of these topics is illegal in China, where TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is based.
While TikTok’s future in the United States remains to be seen, its past actions show the company has no qualms about doing what is necessary to increase brand value regardless of the moral cost.
[avatar user=”Naomi Aeon” size=”thumbnail” align=”left” link=”http://naomiaeon.com/”]Naomi Aeon[/avatar]
A friend and I were talking today, with reverence, about how hard people were hit by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing. We were agreeing that Ginsburg had been, without any of us quite realizing it, holding up the world.
Ginsburg’s departure from this earthly dimension feels to be more than the loss of a true revolutionary and force of nature. It feels to be a call to each of us to shoulder more of the load when it comes to the way our world is. All that weight should not have been on her shoulders to begin with.
As we process the implications of her death, there’s a ramped-up fervor to call senators and get registered to vote. Yet even with our redoubled efforts, we’re still kind of hanging our hopes on a miracle happening. We’re hoping that somebody, anybody, will get a handle on the situation and deliver a solution to the myriad problems we have sitting in our laps.
It is we ourselves who must pledge to take more responsibility for the way things are, and for the ways we could be showing up but aren’t. This “showing up” I’m speaking of goes beyond protests, phone calls, social media posts, donations, and even voting. It goes beyond whatever anyone outside of ourselves is telling us we should be doing. What I’m talking about is showing up in the specific way our soul is nudging us to.
The only thing that differentiates a Ruth Bader Ginsburg from the rest of us is that Ginsberg listened to her inner nudges. She did the unreasonable and the unexpected. She walked her talk and stood her ground, unwaveringly. She followed the unique path that beckoned to her. She tuned out the nay-sayers and those who told a cautionary tale. Ginsburg did Ginsburg. Similarly, equally courageously, we must do so ourselves.
We all have inner whispers quietly but powerfully offering us guidance. We must learn how to discern, listen to, and heed these whispers. We must familiarize ourselves with the workings of our internal compass and follow its true north.
This requires shifting gear from mere compliance with the dictates of the going social change agendas. These tend to be rooted in groupthink, ignoring the spectrums of our very real individuality, and compelling us to take on perspectives that don’t accurately reflect the nuances of our personal truth as life has shown it to us.
Instead of allowing ourselves to be pulled ever more aggressively out of our own center, we must re-center more securely within ourselves. It is by honoring our truest and most authentic selves that we are equipped to make the difference only we can make.
To make the difference only we can make, we have to come home to ourselves. We must learn to be at one with ourselves. And this is easier said than done. For without realizing it, many of us have gone numb.
Tablets and Electronic Devices
We’ve grown ever more disconnected from ourselves. We’re addicted to our phones, our social media feeds, our television sets, and the planning of our next purchases. We’ve gone numb within an on-going recovery process from the stresses of our workaholism and our relentless striving to have more and get more. We’re perennially looking outside of ourselves to fill a randomized hunger that can only be filled from within us.
And now we’ve reached a dead end. We’ve come as far as we can in our somnambulant state. It’s as though we are now paying a price for having collectively gone to sleep. We expected things to remain a certain way. Until suddenly things weren’t sturdy anymore. Suddenly things were topsy-turvy. Suddenly our whole reality changed. Suddenly there we were with our heads spinning and the world seemingly going to hell in a hand basket.
There’s an entitlement issue at play when we expect the pillars to remain in place, even if we ourselves aren’t doing much to ensure the foundations remain solid. We can be entirely well-intentioned, yet coast along with little self-reflection as to whether we are doing our part to ensure our world is the way we want it to be.
Doing our part is a matter of doing deep inner work on ourselves and taking action in our surroundings. We have to put more into ourselves to get more out of ourselves. By the same token, we have to put more into life to get more out of it. We have to offer more to others.
We have to contribute to the world around us in a more energized, proactive way.
It’s impossible not to feel weary and apprehensive about the state of the world right now. But if we can’t find our strength within ourselves, and if we refuse to bring more to the table, we can’t realistically expect that anyone else will. Powerless as we might feel, we are being called to step into our personal leadership, our inner leadership. This moment demands that we tap into our capacity to claim more authority and more sovereignty over our lives.
It is possible to ask more of ourselves while still remaining gentle with ourselves. The past year has posed very real challenges for most of us, and we must designate time to retreat and replenish and perhaps to lick our wounds. If we find ourselves in a deep personal crisis, it may be that the best thing to do is “dissolve” and go inward. To surrender to the sacred process of dying and being reborn, even while we’re alive.
But if we have any bandwidth for it at all, we must listen to the whispers within us and heed what we hear. We must go beyond “reacting”; to the pain, to the discomfort, to the suspense of this moment. And it’s we ourselves who must determine, using our own best judgment, what we should or should not be doing. And then actually do the thing.
If this world is going to right itself, more of us are going to have to be willing to “be the change.” More of us will have to find it within ourselves to show up with the strength, the healthy mindset, the open-heart, and the bravery our world is needing from us right about now.
Whether within our most intimate inner circles, or within the world at large, we ourselves must be the influencers. We ourselves must be the game-changers. We ourselves must be the pioneers, the trail-blazers, and the edge-makers. For in the end, when it comes to the world we are living in, we ourselves are the leaders we’ve been waiting for, and no one else.
—
Naomi Aeon, PhDKuran Malhotra believes in the American Dream. He believes people of all creeds, ethnicities, and backgrounds should have access to the tools and networks required to run a small business in American. He helps immigrant-owned businesses navigate the American market. “Small Businesses are often described as the backbone of the United States.”, Kuran Malhotra states emphatically. New data collected in 2019 shows that Immigrant-owned businesses employ nearly 8 million Americans and wield $1.1 Trilling in spending power*. With nearly every city and community containing immigrants and immigrant-owned businesses, it’s no wonder immigrant-owned businesses are a large contributor to national employment and stability. In order to have a successful and financially thriving community, education of and access to financial institutions are necessary for all individuals.
English Proficiency Challenges Immigrant Entrepreneurs
Most first-generation immigrant business owners have what is called Limited English Proficiency*. This is a term used to describe those individuals that are not fluent in the English language. “These business owners face tough challenges when navigating the financial system within the United States.”, states Kuran Malhotra. There are many different acronyms and financial terms in the banking industry such as FDIC(Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), DSR(Debt Service Ratio), SBA(Small Business Association), SLA(Service Level Agreements), and so on. Trying to understand these terms when fluent in English is difficult, let alone in another language.
In addition to the abundance of financial terms that an immigrant business owner must learn, many banking institutions are not equipped to service native, English-speaking business owners as well as immigrant business owners. While advancements have been made in the banking industry there are still a number of improvements that need to be made, including hiring more bilingual staff, providing bilingual and native language materials, and bilingual websites.
Despite having English Language Proficiency difficulties, immigrant business owners typically find alternate financial assistance. These alternative forms of assistance are usually common scams that specifically target immigrant business owners who are not fluent in the English language nor US financial terms*. This means that immigrant business owners are more susceptible to scams and illegitimate financial practices. These business owners, who are unfamiliar with US financial institutions and best practices, more often than not find themselves in situations where they are deceived by high-interest loans and high-cost predatory financial products.
Due to the rampant deception and lack of bilingual assistance within financial institutions, immigrant businesses typically, and rightfully, distrust traditional banking within the United States. Many immigrants have not only had negative experiences within their native countries but experience them once they get to the US. This makes them less likely to want to build relationships within any legitimate financial institution. The challenge of building relationships is further complicated when banks don’t strive to have the ability to communicate properly with those immigrants seeking financial resources.
Kuran Malhotra Stresses The Importance of Multilingual Hires
Being fluent in Spanish and English has allowed for Kuran Malhotra to see first-hand what disadvantages exist for immigrant business owners within the financial community. He believes it is imperative that every financial institution seek out, hire, and train individuals that are multilingual to better service immigrant-owned and run businesses. Kuran Malhotra states, “In order to have successful small businesses across all areas of the United States, further efforts need to be made within the finance industry to incorporate immigrant business owners.” In addition to hiring qualified personnel and reaching out to the immigrant community, financial institutions should equip themselves with the capability to incorporate modern translation technology into everyday usage for banking employees and immigrant business owners. Making changes to increase banking and financial access to immigrants will grow their companies while growing the banking institutions themselves. As a member of the ever-growing financial industry, Malhotra strives to provide access to the best information and resources to each and every one of his clients.
*https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/press-release/new-data-shows-immigrant-owned-businesses-employed-8-million-americans-immigrants-wield-1-1-trillion-in-spending-power/
*https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/index.html
*https://www.ct.gov/smartconsumer/cwp/view.asp?Q=590934Delaware’s economy is in crisis. For over a year now, I have been screaming from the rooftops about a dangerous situation that could push this mess into a statewide economic abyss affecting every person in Delaware. This is of course, the result of Delaware’s Chancellor Andre Bouchard transforming our cherished and once revered institution, Delaware’s Chancery Court, into what I and countless others, now equate to a third-world Kangaroo Court, where decisions with massive implications for thousands of victims are made capriciously and arbitrarily. Indeed, with 4,000 employees and offices in 30 countries all affected, the damage to Delaware from Bouchard’s whimsical decisions in the TransPerfect case, has now come home to roost.
Over 1/3 of Delaware’s income comes from companies choosing to incorporate here. Bouchard’s questionable, legal actions have contributed to Delaware’s drastic drop from #1 to #11 in a business confidence survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The catalyst for the downward spiral? You guessed it: “Judicial Impartiality of Courts” — Bouchard’s TransPerfect decision took us from #2 to #15 in this critical catagory, and no one is willing to take him on — except for yours truly. I will take him on until I see these TransPerfect families safe, and Delaware’s economy resurrected from this crisis.
Famous constitutional scholar and law professor Alan Dershowitz has now come out with guns blazing on the right side of this issue. Before this, Dershowitz has been quoted publicly as saying: “Anyone who advises their client to incorporate in Delaware is tantamount to business malpractice.” Think it could not get any worse? Think again! See the article below released yesterday in Forbes! We’re not talking about the Delaware News Journal now, we’re talking national coverage of Delaware’s local disgrace.
Court corruption is a problem as I see it. Another thing that spurs me to action is the apparent disregard by many establishment legislators to understand their job is to make laws that protect and help people and businesses that respect separation of powers, and provide for the checks and balances required by the Constitution. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” and the Chancery Court’s Chief Chancellor, Andre Bouchard, is just too powerful and too rogue to be the answer for a state in an extreme economic crisis. SB-53, sponsored by Senator Colin Bonini, is part of the answer, and should have been passed in this last legislative session. Once this rigged auction process takes place, and these American jobs are lost forever, I predict the Delaware economy will be in irreparable ruin, as corporations cease incorporating here. Then, all these legislators can do is look back and say: “Sorry, we should have acted with the leadership our constituents expected, when they voted ‘us’ in as lawmakers.”
Certain Republican Senators who should have been 100% behind Bonini are blinded by the illegitimate status quo in Delaware. These people are jaded beyond redemption, are without vision, and absolutely need to be replaced.
GUEST POST WRITTEN BY
Alan M. Dershowitz
Alan M. Dershowitz is Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. He represents Shirley Shawe.
Delaware’s sophisticated courts have made it a mecca for incorporation. But a recent ruling could set a dangerous precedent. (Photo credit: Shutterstock)
American corporations count on securing justice in Delaware. Two-thirds of all publicly-traded U.S. companies, including more than 60% of the Fortune 500, are incorporated in the First State. Delaware’s famously sophisticated courts are prized for giving corporations and their shareholders maximum flexibility and predictability.
However, a recent ruling by the Delaware Chancery Court, upheld on appeal by the Delaware Supreme Court, could set a new and dangerously disruptive precedent that corporate America ought to view with concern. Bear in mind that Delaware decisions have worldwide implications, as well, since nearly all major U.S.-based corporations sell products, run offices and employ people internationally.
For the first time ever, the Court of Chancery, the no-jury “business court,” has ordered the forced sale of a privately-held, thriving corporation over the strenuous objections of shareholders who own half of the company.
The company in question is TransPerfect Global (TPG), parent of the world’s second largest provider of translation and related technical services, with 2016 revenues of $545 million and pretax profits of approximately $80 million.
Philip Shawe and Elizabeth Elting co-founded the business in 1992 when, both in their 20s, they were romantically involved and shared a dorm room at New York University’s Stern School of Business. Working as co-CEOs, they built TransPerfect into an enterprise with 4,000 full-time employees and a network of more than 20,000 translators, editors and proofreaders working in 170 languages.
Ms. Elting owns 50% of TPG’s 100 shares. Mr. Shawe owns 49 shares and his mother, Shirley Shawe, owns one share. Unfortunately, the co-founders now no longer get along. Their disagreement over the TransPerfect business is what landed them in Delaware Chancery Court, which has not solved the problem, but exacerbated it. Delaware’s mishandling of the case has cost the company more than $150 million in court costs and litigation expenses and mounting. Remarkably, through these three years of legal turmoil, TransPerfect has continued to set new records for sales and earnings. The company has logged an astonishing 97 consecutive quarters of profitability and 25 straight years of growth.
I was retained by Shirley Shawe to argue that this forced sale is an unconstitutional “taking” of private property for a non-public purpose.
In the meantime, the Delaware court cannot seem to wait until the case is finally decided – it is currently in federal court and on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Under the court-appointed custodian, auction bids have already been solicited and submitted. Notwithstanding employee protests and outrage, the custodian has plowed ahead, hoping to render the result a fait accompli, without regard to new circumstances and new opportunities to resolve the case. The forced sale is a death sentence on a thriving company; we are seeking a stay of execution.
I will save most of our constitutional points for the courtroom. I note only that neither court could point to any public purpose that would result from the forced sale of a vibrantly successful company. Property takings, to pass constitutional muster, must serve a public good. Delaware’s unprecedented actions in the TransPerfect case do not even make a gesture in that direction.
The court ruled instead that the Shawes and Ms. Elting were “hopelessly deadlocked”; if the current situation were allowed to continue, it would jeopardize the viability of the company. This, despite the company’s impressive record of achieving 97 consecutive quarters of profitable growth – a trend that would likely continue in the absence of the court ordered sale.
The Chancery Court’s articulated twin goals – to “protect TransPerfect’s employees” and “to provide maximum return to the stockholders” – are at odds with its rulings. The company runs on a zero-debt basis and reinvests most of its profits in the business. This is a formula for growth, job creation, and innovation, though not for maximizing shareholder value in the short term. An auction winner – most probably a private equity firm – would be unlikely to take the same approach. Its goal would be to cash out within a few years rather than continue building something over decades. Its ability to outbid the Shawes would rely on cutting costs by sending American jobs offshore.
TransPerfect’s clean balance sheet is a perfect launching pad for a leveraged buyout (LBO), in which the investor puts down as little as possible of the purchase price and borrows the rest. The way to cover the resulting debt service is to slash payroll and benefits by replacing as many of the 2,300 salaried America jobs as possible with workers in low-cost foreign locations. This would erode the company’s reputation and competitive position over time. But in the Wall Street LBO universe, the goal of private equity firms is to manage the business in order to “flip” it in a few years so as to maximize short-term profits.
Mr. Shawe has proposed two common-sense ways of ending the dispute while preserving the long-term interests of employees and the company: He and his mother have put forward a settlement offer of $300 million for their 50 percent stake and given Ms. Elting the option to either buy the Shawes’ shares or sell them hers at that price. Ms. Elting rejected the offer.
More recently, Mr. Shawe turned the offer around, suggesting that Ms. Elting name her price and let Mr. Shawe decide whether to buy or sell. Ms. Elting has not responded to that offer. Mr. Shawe’s buy/sell option is simple, transparent, and fair. Alas, Delaware thinks it knows better. If Ms. Elting wants to cash out, the Chancery Court has said “it would be unjust to leave [her] with no recourse but to sell her 50-percent interest” to the Shawes. Forcing the Shawes into an auction, the court concluded, is the only way to provide Ms. Elting with “a fair price for her shares.”
That fair price, in the court’s view, is one based on selling the entire company, with a premium for control that wouldn’t be there if only 50 percent were on the market. Ms. Elting never negotiated for that premium and isn’t entitled to it. What comes through in the Chancery Court’s order and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision upholding it is that a maximum return for one shareholder trumps other shareholders’ private property rights, regardless of the ultimate implications for the corporation and its employees.
The ruling in Shawe v. Elting leaves a huge question mark over Delaware’s supremacy as America’s capital of incorporation. Unless this situation is remedied by legislation, corporations will have to think twice about where they should incorporate, if they want predictability, fairness and justice. Alan M. Dershowitz is Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and represents Shirley Shawe in this case. Follow Dershowitz on Twitter @AlanDersh and on Facebook @AlanMDershowitz.
Please note new e-mail address, [email protected]
Please note new Twitter account, https://twitter.com/Judson_Bennett
