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.
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'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.
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."
