> So a US equivalent would be to require data to be based in the US

Right, isn’t that what a sale to Microsoft would essentially do?

The metaphor here doesn’t cover the fact that China has banned tons of American companies — should the US not respond in turn? I don’t know what the right response is tbh but I don’t think they should feel compelled to just shrug it off.

Even sale to Microsoft would looks legally dubious I think, if federal government is seen to be involved in brokering such a deal or ordering Microsoft to do it. I don't think the federal government or at least the executive should have that kind of authority like asking/forcing Microsoft to do a specific thing.

I don't know about China, but US executive and legislative have limits to their authority and I doubt such arbitrary bans are within that.

US seems least bothered about US apps/companies not being allowed in China and other countries, and retaliation for such does not seems the motive for US actions in this topic.

Anyways such straight reciprocal actions are often the naivest, and most simplistic of possible responses anyway.

> I don't think the federal government or at least the executive should have that kind of authority like asking/forcing Microsoft to do a specific thing.

No you misunderstand - Read the article, TikTok would sell off to keep operating in the US (just like Amazon had to sell off data centers to operate them in the EU). The US government wouldn’t be forcing Microsoft, just saying if you want to operate with American data you have to be on American soil.

> Anyways such straight reciprocal actions are often the naivest, and most simplistic of possible responses anyway

But you haven’t offered an alternative. They should respond, I don’t think this is an unreasonable way to do it.

I am not sure this is even a response to anything. It looks like the first US move in a new confrontation with China. Merely treating is as a response, isn't sufficiently strong explanation in my opinion.

More over I don't think President has power/authority to ban anything at all, let alone apps on privately administered app stores. President isn't a dictator elected by the people.

There might be legitimate grounds to take action against an app/service like data breaches or copyright infringement, even terms of right violations, but nothing of that seems to be the case. Even if it was the case, it would have to go through the legal justice system.

From what I have seen, the theory of threats to national security being bandied about isn't substantial nor concrete enough to hold in courts.

So if TikTok does not run afoul of our laws, there shouldn't be grounds for banning that or any other app citing vague and theoretical national security considerations.

> just like Amazon had to sell off data centers to operate them in the EU

You're saying amazon don't own their EU data centers? That's surprising to me. Got a source for that?

> I don't know about China, but US executive and legislative have limits to their authority and I doubt such arbitrary bans are within that.

There are not such limits on the authority of the Chinese government.

American brands have a huge presence in China. Chinese brands do not have much presence in the US. It seems like whenever a Chinese company appears to be making inroads, it gets banned: ZTE, Huawei, TikTok.

This distinction of brands is notable, in my opinion, as it is largely specific to Chinese brands rather than Chinese products and even then there are exceptions such as Alibaba and Xiaomi.

The US government allows China to export cheap, relatively low-tech goods to the US. However, it's clear now that the US government will ban any Chinese high-tech company that gains significant market share in the US. In some cases, such as ZTE and Huawei, it will go much further and attempt to put them out of business altogether, using sanctions and threats (e.g., threatening to end intelligence sharing with the UK unless it stops getting Huawei equipment).