The argument is basically that for the average US national, mass surveillance and propaganda by US tech is more of an issue.

The argument against TikTok boils down to "it's Chinese", without any kind of detail or thought on how this badness actually works. What, specifically, is bad about TikTok that doesn't apply to any other influence buying or advertising operation within the US?

HN often argues that free speech is such an unalloyed important political good that all sorts of racism and incitement to violence must be allowed. The widespread defence of Kiwifarms, for example. But as soon as someone mentions the magic word "China" all that goes out of the window?

(I should note that if you're a US national or resident with Chinese family or of Chinese origin, the long arm of oppression can be much more of a problem!)

Just look at the american media reacting to any kind of control over american tech companies...

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/brazilian-g...

Any kind of control over these companies is seen as "censorship", while banning a foreign (to the USA) company in the US is seen as a matter of national strategy... That's why it is so hypocritical

it seems rather mild, even.

A lot of companies wanting to operate in china must have a pretty large ownership by chinese parties. While chinese owned companies have no such obligations in the US.

Microsoft runs outlook, bing, and until recently LinkedIn in China.

Not the parent, but I think the main hypocrisy is to claim that freedom of enterprise and that freedom or speech are paramount, and then cracking down on Tiktok.

The fact that Tiktok has 60% ownership by investment funds (most of which are US based), is just the cherry on top.

Personally, I think that some amount of censorship is warranted (see the "paradox of intolerance"), but I think that then the US should dial back all of that "land of the free" rethoric

People and companies in the U.S. (and parts of the U.S. government) have frequently said that it's bad of the Chinese government to prevent U.S. companies from having Chinese users, and to prevent people in Chinese from choosing to see material from U.S. companies and users. We've said that this wasn't a legitimate thing for Chinese law to do, on account of human rights law, free speech principles, and also trade treaties. We've tried hard to help people in China circumvent technical restrictions on accessing foreign content and services, and often claimed that was appropriate as a matter of upholding Chinese people's autonomy.

(I say "we" here because I've personally done those things.)

And the U.S. (people, companies, government, and NGOs) say that Chinese Internet censorship is bad for Chinese people, not just for American companies whose services are blocked.