To citizens and cultural health, yes, the large domestic companies are a much greater threat. There are also many more impediments (by way of law, sentiment, and corruption) to doing anything about it.
But to the US government (and its codependent allies), losing grip of the influence the US secured over the Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for some kind of active contest of power which would be really costly and painful. Taking measures that prepare for that, under the lax purview of international law and diplomacy, is simply easier to do.
> But to the US government (and its codependent allies), losing grip of the influence the US secured over the Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for some kind of active contest of power which would be really costly and painful.
Do you have more sources/readings on this? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just the first rationale I've heard that doesn't boil down to vague innuendos about manipulation and national security that are equally applicable to US companies.
Modern history through the Cold War sees diplomacy through the lens of "great powers" exercising some "sphere of influence" over vassals, subjects, and partners.
Through the 19th and 20th century, up to WWII, the US worked to define its sphere of influence as all of the Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine) and as much of Pacific rim as they could claw away from declining/decolonizing European powers.
After WWII, as the only great power able to proceed at full stride and with no recovery to muster, they were able to cement the Pacific projection through new relationships with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc
But the landscape changed over the subsequent 80 years, with China's independent modernization and industrialization setting it up as the modern "great power" was due to inherit its legacy from pre-modern history.
And so we arrive at today, where China feels increasingly ready to challenge stale European and US influence over Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South East more generally. The US inevitably needs to respond to those challenges. That's the brewing, long-anticipated, and seemingly inevitable conflict that becomes increasingly hot as the US is stretched thin by internal conflict and Russias's parallel challenges to it in Europe.
In this global conflict, TikTok's continued success is a huge benefit to China and huge vulnerability to the US.
Meanwhile, domestic social media companies actually play the opposite strategic role, giving the US a channel to project its voice into foreign constituencies to influence both allies and enemies. Which we can assume is why China already bans them there.
Not the person you're replying to, and I also don't have sources, but to me this is the logical conclusion to deeper thought beyond these vague innuendoes about manipulation and national security.
And isolationist, hands-off US would be great for China (and Russia, etc.). China has been increasing their influence on the global stage for quite some time now, and would love to surpass the US in its global influence. Helping to get leaders elected (like Trump) who want to pull back and focus inward could easily be a part of that strategy. (To be fair, I don't think China got Trump re-elected; I think Democrat blindness toward actual domestic issues got Trump re-elected.)
> "... that are equally applicable to US companies.*
I don't really agree that's the case. From the US government's perspective, the dominant social media platforms being owned by US companies is a big win. Certainly those companies sometimes act in ways that piss off the US government, but the trade off is worth it.
But to the US government (and its codependent allies), losing grip of the influence the US secured over the Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for some kind of active contest of power which would be really costly and painful. Taking measures that prepare for that, under the lax purview of international law and diplomacy, is simply easier to do.