Because the subtext is, "It is OK for companies to invade the privacy of US citizens, so long the companies' own countries is also on the US side as well".
The US side of what? What does it mean to be on the US side?
Look up Five Eyes.
There are no absolute friends and absolute enemies. China was a good commercial partner of the US until a few years ago. Italy has been spied for decades by the CIA. The US wiretapped Germany's PM. Israel was caught installing spy mobile phone cells around the White House.
Or is threatening the economic and technological supremacy of the US by competing on the global markets already a way of not siding with the US?
Italy - Not Five Eyes
Germany - Not Five Eyes
Israel - Not Five Eyes
Notice a pattern?
Anyone new US foreign policy should also lookup the Munro Doctrine. Would have saved Maduro and the Venezuelans a great deal of suffering.
The short list is China, Iran, Russia, N Korea, Venezuela, Cuba. There are others, but these seem to get the most attention.
Remember the Axis of Evil?
Country’s have complex relationships. At the height of the Cold War the US and USSR still had some trade. It’s really propaganda that boils things down to allies and enemies.
(it's a Soviet plane running drugs, so it's OK, and the Mujahedein involved are run by a chap who went to Oxford, and are fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, so that's OK too)
Yes and no, there are some ways of seeing things that are not really compatible. For example, the USSR wanted to export communism internationally which meant incidentally fomenting violent coups around the world to create socialist powers they could control. If you are a target of such strategies you can't seriously be "friendly" with such powers - it's not just propaganda.
During the cold war all sorts of things were justified because they made sense from the perspective of US (governmental) interests. The Vietnam war, the Mujahideen, the toppling of free and democratic governments. In a "realist" framework, the ends justify the means. The "ends" and "means" here are considered from the point of view of the statesman.
When the world is viewed as a chessboard between competing nations, human beings outside the decision making centers suffer - we are reduced to being expendable resources, collateral damage, in the pursuit of "national" interests.
Especially in dictatorships like China and Russia, indeed.
> Viewing competing governments as competition between their countries
I don't understand this comment. So if a foreign government is opposed to you, it's OK because it does not represent its people and therefore you should not do anything about it? As far as I know the government controls the use of violence force so in the end of the day governments matter over people when it comes to foreign relations.
> During the cold war all sorts of things were justified because they made sense from the perspective of US (governmental) interests. The Vietnam war, the Mujahideen, the toppling of free and democratic governments.
This hardly happened in a vacuum. In case you missed an episode the whole of Europe and several parts of Asia were threatened to be taken over by communist rule, in a violent fashion - the US acted as a counter power to that.
And Stalin repeatedly instructed revolutionary communists to stand down in order to avoid provoking Western powers (e.g, in Greece, Italy, France, Yugoslavia, and even China). The USSR provided little to no assistance to revolutionaries in Central and South America, believing that socialism needed to develop there naturally.
So I guess Cuba does not count? Sending missiles right at the doorstep of the US and constant financial aid seems to counter your point.
> The US has fomented violent coups and interfered with legitimate elections all around the world in service of exporting capitalism and free market imperialism (e.g., in Italy, Indonesia, Iran, any number of countries in Central and South America).
Every major power does that, but they are not all equal. The British empire was in comparison a lot more violent that the US has ever been. And people who lived under Soviet Rule (even outside of Russia) also know very well it was far from a peace-loving, people-respecting regime.
“Everybody does imperialism” is not the glimmering rebuttal you think it is.
We know there is geopolitical maneuvering by different countries to improve their standing on the world stage, politically and/or economically, and that includes how they engage on business and technology. The great firewall was not for nothing. Same with fights over 5G or who can operate where, data privacy laws, etc.
OTOH, it's not clear exactly what's at stake when there's a dispute over control of tiktok. Are the worlds governments competing over data sources they could tap to make weaponizable models of societal function? Are they just competing for ownership of emerging markets to help their economies? Does all this amount to a pissing match between the worlds elites? Or are ideological differences sufficient to cause wildly different outcomes for humanity, especially the little folks, depending on who gets the upper hand?