[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.