Because it implicitly buys into the Chinese framing of cyber-sovereignty which is that a country that is not in control of its citizens' communication platforms

Because it implicitly buys into the Chinese framing of cyber-sovereignty which is that a country that is not in control of its citizens' communication platforms cannot properly be considered sovereign in the same way that a state that would let a foreign private company decide how its border policy worked would also not be a fully sovereign state. The US has been going around the world saying it's totally fine that the algorithms affecting the information diet of every non-US, non-China citizen is under the control of a few American regulated private companies that have limited accountability to that country's government. If, as soon as a non-American company has the same leverage over American citizens, the US government immediately starts freaking out, then it significantly weakens the integrity of that argument. For example, Facebook misinformation was a significant catalyst for the persecution and massacre of the Rohingyas. It wasn't until, I think, last year, that Facebook finally got around to hiring a policy expert on Myanmar and only because of the bad Western press it got, not because of any action the Myanmar government itself could have initiated. America's do as I say, not as I do attitude is going to push more and more countries to require some form of cyber-sovereignty as a market condition for access now that the US has laid the precedent. I predicted last year that cyber-sovereignty was going to be one of the defining issues in tech for the next decade and we're about to start seeing whether some of the predictions I made will come true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19824699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19824699