Because open markets and free speech are national values, not tit-for-tat teenage diplomatic drama. We're supposed to be better than that.
In what other trade context would this scenario be acceptable?
And how does giving access to an authoritarian regime, famous for controlling speech, promote free speech?
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.
A democratically elected government banning something is the people deciding.
A lot of people choose meth.
And to also ensure that trade relationships are fair and equitable (which it currently isnt).
Besides, anytime we see the government intervene on matters like this, we're reminded how they make it worse.
And you didn't address my point with respect to young people's lack of life experience. Or that trade relationships should be fair and equitable.
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.
And what you describe as "neo-liberal mumbo-jumbo" I think for most people would be seen as simple commonsense.
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."