Because open markets and free speech are national values, not tit-for-tat teenage diplomatic drama. We're supposed to be better than that.

But its not open markets if one partner blocks all access to it's own market?

In what other trade context would this scenario be acceptable?

And how does giving access to an authoritarian regime, famous for controlling speech, promote free speech?

Consumer choice is unequivocally good.

Besides, the problem is already solvable. People could simply stop using TikTok if they agreed that its disadvantages outweigh its benefits. No one is forcing them. This is a vote with your feet issue, plain and simple.

> People could simply stop using TikTok if they agreed that its disadvantages outweigh its benefits

A democratically elected government banning something is the people deciding.

Ridiculous argument.

A lot of people choose meth.

It sounds like your argument is, The government can be a force for good for people who aren't capable of making rational decisions.

Exactly and young people lack the life experience to comprehend the long-term risks associated with surrendering their private data to the CCP or being exposed to sophisticated disinformation campaigns over time. So it is incumbent on the govt to protect their long-term interests.

And to also ensure that trade relationships are fair and equitable (which it currently isnt).

I fail to see how free markets work if people aren't rational actors. We might as well have a communist economy if we can't count on that.

Besides, anytime we see the government intervene on matters like this, we're reminded how they make it worse.

Or we may as well have no laws because people are completely rational actors no matter their age etc...

And you didn't address my point with respect to young people's lack of life experience. Or that trade relationships should be fair and equitable.

I'm a parent, I guide my kiddos when rationality escapes them. The process itself, parent-child, teaches them how to make their own decisions. Governments can't teach people how to make their own decisions.

The statement that trade relationships must be fair is some sort of neoliberal mumbo jumbo. I don't accept it as an assumption or a consequence. You can accept it as axiomatic if you want, but I don't see it as a consequence of any valid logical train of thought.

Yes but govts can try to minimize the damage from people making bad decisions. Which they do constantly, across all areas of society.

And what you describe as "neo-liberal mumbo-jumbo" I think for most people would be seen as simple commonsense.

It's a social fact which is different from an objective fact based in reality.

ok well I think for most people this "social fact" aligns exactly with reality, and as you've already stated, people are always rational actors so...

The idea of open markets is that no player is given favorable treatment by the government. If you allow a player that comes from a country that treats its citizens as human farms, I wouldn't call that open markets.

The two statements just don't logically follow. A better argument would be that the US, in an effort to improve human rights, sets a minimum threshold for market participation at the level of nations. Unfortunately, that's not the argument being made.

Open markets mean what it says on the tin - markets without barrier. Saying, "We're barring actors for entering the market for reason X," means closed markets even is X is "treating people poorly."

Because they have seen how EU's social media companies ended up.

What EU's social media companies? Exactly.

Ok, so you gave a good reason for China to ban US companies and you haven't given a good one for why the US shouldn't ban TikTok.

China never claimed that they value freedom, (whatever you define as freedom). They value harmony instead, (whatever you define as harmony).

By US banning TikTok, US is acting against claimed values, turning out to be hypocrite. China, by banning US social media, doesn't. Might be seen unfair, but it is a dead end that US painted itself into.

For the sake of argument, _if_ we agree that banning is OK, EU should ban social media from both, and subsidize their own the same way as US subsidized theirs.

Why do people have this delusion that empowering oppressive governments promotes freedom in any way?

It is not about "empowering oppressive government".

It is being true to what I claim that I'm, what my values are. If I start playing opportunist, how I'm better that the other guy?

If the EU considers America an adversary (perhaps they should), they would be wise to ban all American social media.

Because the US isn't China, not should it try to be.

What US value is being respected by allowing a different authoritarian country operate uncontested on American soil?