| >This isn’t a Chinese newspaper being banned.
>This isn’t a US citizen being blocked from expressing themselves. ACLU and EFF consider the Montana ban unconstitutional. So it's about free speech, at least partly. >This is a software product. Code == speech argument has been used many times. No settled case law so far as far as I know. >mobile apps generate certain types of data that distinguish them from Then make a law that regulates the exchange of this kind of data for all foreign companies. Instead we have the CFIUS commission being used to arbitrarily regulate a particular foreign company, which theoretically doesn't even need to have US presence to function, and it looks very close to the Chinese-style protectionism. >unique geopolitical context of this particular app The unique geopolitical situation is that US companies influence (and siphon data) the entire world(the degree of US government's influence on that influence is beside the point, and is a very complex issue), but the US refuses to be influenced(and have data siphoned) by a potential adversary even at the "app where teens dance" level. |