It's a huge relief that ByteDance is not the government of China. What level of foreign ownership makes a company purely foreign controlled? If funds controlled by Chinese nationals bought stakes in Facebook/Twitter/Alphabet, wouldn't that put them in the same category? What portion of ByteDance would have to be owned by non-Chinese people before it would be in the clear?

The premise of why a Chinese company(ies) should be singled out in this way is that China is a totalitarian state where people and corporations are subject to the absolute will of the Communist Party so "ByteDance is not the government of China" isn't going to convince anyone who believes this action is justified.

If Facebook/Twitter/Alphabet were to be acquired by Chinese interests that would almost certainly be blocked by CFIUS just like the potential Broadcom/Qualcomm acquisition was a couple years ago.

Should the US also ban foreign TV shows, music, books originated from totalitarian states? Because the producers are subject to the will of their governments and might be compelled into spreading propaganda although it has not happen?

I personally believe that freedom will prevail and this kind of race to the bottom towards censorship and executive branch unilateralism is sad.

Should it? No, I don't think so. But I do think restricting Xinhua or KCNA is different from restricting the BBC or Le Monde or whatever.

> What level of foreign ownership makes a company purely foreign controlled?

Whatever level allows them to dictate behavior.

> If funds controlled by Chinese nationals bought stakes in Facebook/Twitter/Alphabet, wouldn't that put them in the same category?

Of course.

> What portion of ByteDance would have to be owned by non-Chinese people before it would be in the clear?

Of far more significant is whether ByteDance's leadership are subject to Chinese jurisdiction.