I've been saying for years that the US would ban any Chinese social media app that got popular in the US. Once again: 'free speech', 'free markets', etc, are just the rhetorical exploitation of the power asymmetries the US enjoys over other countries.
When America talks about 'free speech', 'free markets', 'free trade', etc, it means: "lower your barriers so that our established firms, media, NGOs, etc, can enjoy free rein." It does this because it knows it's the more powerful party, that local offerings can't compete.
As soon as another (non-aligned) party proves as capable as the US and the US loses its advantage, 'free speech', 'free markets', 'free trade', etc, are completely forgotten. In the absence of certainty that American firms and media will triumph, national security is invoked.
The issue I have with this is the rhetoric of liberalism, not the act of forcing a foreign app to divest or even the hypocrisy. Sovereign states can do whatever they want. It'd be better if everyone was upfront about their limits, but the real issue is the pattern of behavior.
This isn't just something liberal states do to other countries, it's what they do to their own people. The same rhetoric of 'freedom' is used to exploit domestic power asymmetries. The promotion of 'free speech' and 'free markets' is done knowing that the outcome is controllable.
You can also see the work that the "we're pwning the Chicoms" stuff that's being pushed so hard by the media is doing here. It's covering up how liberalism functions, covering up its fundamental opportunism. As long as you think "but China bad", you'll miss the big picture.
