To be fair, an objective person might prefer to have _no_ "big players"
Whether a biased or self-interested commenter on the subject believes this is possible or not doesn't eliminate the possibilty of this preference
It is like asking whether a voter would prefer to have the "biggest players" giving funds to X candidate or Y candidate, ignoring whether the voter would actually prefer campaign finance reform instead
It is not idealistic to phrase the choice as something like "Assuming investor-financed commercial spyware must exist, would you rather the biggest players be X, Y or Z", it's just common sense
I dont really trust the intent of any information I read online. This article could well be part of a influence campaign by a foreign power.
"Because if you talk about something the most, this means you have it the most.." is how most people perceive things. Of course, the opposite is often true.
If the absolute value of China + Russia + ME was the same, but US went down? Yeah, probably. Doubly so if sales going down meant less R&D investment and therefore lower quality software.
People talk about US as if it’s some kind of lala land! Every country, every person should take active measures to protect itself from US influence.
1) If you're counting investment, you should count it in dollars, not number of investors or corporate entity locations.
2) This is missing at least two extremely well-known CNE vendors, which makes me doubt its accuracy.
3) The takeaway from the graph on Mythical Beasts [1] should be that the industry is _very small_, not that it's very big.
4) Americans should be happy that the US government is the biggest player. Would you prefer to have China or Russia or the Middle East be the biggest player? Get a warrant -> own a phone is a very straightforward process that fits into existing models of civil liberties in the US.
[1]: https://mythicalbeasts.atlanticcouncil.org/