[pjc50]

The argument is basically that for the average US national, mass surveillance and propaganda by US tech is more of an issue.

The argument against TikTok boils down to "it's Chinese", without any kind of detail or thought on how this badness actually works. What, specifically, is bad about TikTok that doesn't apply to any other influence buying or advertising operation within the US?

HN often argues that free speech is such an unalloyed important political good that all sorts of racism and incitement to violence must be allowed. The widespread defence of Kiwifarms, for example. But as soon as someone mentions the magic word "China" all that goes out of the window?

(I should note that if you're a US national or resident with Chinese family or of Chinese origin, the long arm of oppression can be much more of a problem!)

[amanaplanacanal]

You’re not wrong, but they aren’t doing it for you. They view tiktok as a national security issue.

[pjc50]

Of course they're not doing it for me, I'm not even a US national either! :) I'm just a .. participant in the discourse.

(I'm mildly surprised that the UK hasn't had a go at this yet, since the government has a track record of stupid internet censorship attempts, but perhaps that's going to turn up in the autumn electioneering)

[zavertnik]

> The argument is basically that for the average US national, mass surveillance and propaganda by US tech is more of an issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this track 100% with the bills stated intent: to prevent foreign adversaries from having this kind of influence?

I don't think the US is making an argument that data collection, surveillance, and propaganda are bad and then selectively only choosing to enforce these ideals on China. I think the US is making the argument that a company which belongs to an adversary and operates an a domain that is out of bounds from US regs/enforcement is a NatSec issue.