"It's surprising that any country would allow that to continue unchecked."

Hold on now - Google still provides immense value.

And what does it cost?

Nothing.

The 'consumer surplus' value of G and FB are quite immense.

Google captures a tiny fraction of the value they create via ads.

What would Canada do without Google?

There is no Google here.

If we started with with 'government backing' it would be a s-show.

I understand about the issue from taxation perspective etc. - but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Google has a high degree of utility and FB does as well for many individuals.

Some jiggering with tax and investment laws might help, but on the whole, this is a 'good thing'.

Twitter. Well ... America can keep that :):):)

> Google still provides immense value.

Absolutely. But so does Baidu. And while doing so, Baidu provides jobs and tax revenue in China with little national security risk for China. And at the same time Baidu creates thousands of extremely skilled Chinese software engineers.

Frankly I agree, and would not shed a year if Google and FB were banned in other regions, allowing local competitors to develop. I don't buy this idea that the silicon valley hegemony is an unequivocally good thing.

A Chinese Gov/Mil alternative would be unequivocally better?

I don't know that the United States has any legal mechanism to prevent an online Chinese company from holding the top position and doing what American-native companies do with the data. At least I can't think of any such mechanism? Perhaps someone here is a legal scholar?

If the last years have show us anything it is that the USA government (and others) can create the legality that they think more convenient.

For instance, you can invent a new category in order to avoid detaining people like criminals or war enemies if none of the laws applying to those are convenient.

True, and I wouldn't put it past them, but I know of no current legal mechanism for that. Emphasis on legal, of course.

It does make me wonder what they'd use for justification - prior to the current administration. The current administration would just use nationalism and protectionism, I'd think. I'm not sure how the previous administration would have framed it in order to make it politically feasible.

The federal government can forbid any of its employees from using the said service out of security concerns, a la Kaspersky. With network effect this can be an insurmountable challenge. Why should anyone try?

For the thought exercise, I suppose. With the already entrenched services, it seems unlikely to change to whole new services. At least not any time soon.

There were services that came before, but they lacked the inertia the current incumbents have. The userbase of Facebook, Google, etc. is huge in the Western world. Even if another company came along and built a great service, I doubt it would see mass adoption due to the massive numbers involved with the current providers.

They can still watch youtube videos about molecular biology all they want. The numbers don't really matter in that regard. And why would Google care if whatsapp is banned? Facebook didn't care that google search was banned.

Banning Facebook would actually give a boost to their productivity, not much to lose there.

If a hostile foreign company starts getting significant market share, you can be sure that the local companies will be seen to cry out for regulation and the government will oblige

Yes, I'm expecting Europe to start waking up to this

It gives rise to possible corruption, like local corporate influences to block international competition.