[Manuel_D]

What purported value is it going against? Allowing market access to countries that don't reciprocate is not one of our values. Nor is it one of China's. Or most countries, for that matter. When other countries erect tariffs, we usually respond on kind. And when we raise tariffs other countries - including close friends like Canada - they respond with their own tariffs against American imports too.

You've got it backwards: reciprocal trade agreements are the norm not just in US politics but across the world.

[itishappy]

Freedom of expression. Our government is banning a major platform that Americans use to access information.

Are we doing this because they banned Facebook? Again, I don't think so.

[Manuel_D]

We're banning the company not the ability to express. They can upload the exact same videos to YouTube shorts, Instagram Reels, and who knows how many alternatives.

[z_]

What about ByteDance’s freedom of expression?

[whats_a_quasar]

ByteDance is a Chinese corporation. The US federal government does not govern it and has no responsibility to allow a Chinese corporation to express itself in the US by publishing propaganda.

[LunaSea]

They are owned by a Chinese company and thus have no rights

[Manuel_D]

What about Meta's freedom of expression in China?

This is the foundation of reciprocal trade agreements: We don't put tariffs on your cars if you don't put tariffs on ours. We don't ban your social media companies if you don't ban ours.

[cscurmudgeon]

US freedom of expression applies only to US residents not to foreign govt controlled companies lol. And that is good.

[z_]

Does the Citizens United ruling have a say?

[Manuel_D]

No. Citizens United covered PAC donations. Nowhere did it rule that the government cannot restrict foreign social media companies.

[cscurmudgeon]

Nope, go read it. Once again, the first amendment applies only to US entities.

Unless China is part of the US, I don't see how CCP/Bytedance can get First Amendment protection.