> And not both? International trade across border is fundamentally state to state agreement. Chinese citizen #1 does not directly engage with US company #2 whe

> And not both? International trade across border is fundamentally state to state agreement. Chinese citizen #1 does not directly engage with US company #2 when they make a commercial exchange. Geographic border is quite literally a physical barrier where transaction friction is reduced with instruments like trade deals. It's always mediated by laws from both parties (import/export controls) and sometimes a superbody (multilateral organizations). Smuggling wouldn't be a concept if relationship is between people to people. > ARE western propaganda Everything is political, but some politics are more acceptable than others. Censorship in media has gotten pretty overwhelming in PRC last few years, but "cutting all the dangerous thoughts" is gross hyperbole. Marvel blockbusters do fine in both China and US with minimal editing. Ditto with NBA before HK drama. Most western brands for that matter. There's overlap of shared taste in commercial goods and popular media, same can't be said on actual political news / propaganda like this instance. Especially this instance, if people knew what Guo is to CCP. Cracking down on speech and foreign influence is matter of priority and perspective. > different example Hard to think of one right now. Point is no one attaches values to trade of commodity items. No one insists McDonald's must sell pork/beef burgers in Islamic countries or India because of values, but when it comes to censorship and China/Vietnam, it's unreasonable for US social media platforms to follow local requirements. We're not even touching on a future where foreign companies actively endorse Chinese propaganda to cater to Chinese identity politics, instead of current reluctant endorsement due to legal compliance. > why does US have to comply No one has to comply, just don't expect market access, nor whine previous access is lost. > banned Dodgy Chinese brands vehicles aren't in US because they're banned but because they don't meet safety requirements. There are entire sectors of economy where foreign companies are actually banned i.e. some financial services. Implying western tech are banned is simply false, see Bing. But it's the basis of lots of grievance politics in tech, i.e. endorsing tiktok ban as reciprocal when tiktok follows all US laws. Same is not true vice versa. > not realistic Apple / Bing continues to operate fine in Chinese market. FB / Google were working on Chinese compliant services a few years ago. Maybe I'm misinterpreting. If you mean multinationals being beholden to multiple jurisdictions including home countries which supersedes everyone else, then yeah that's a finicky problem especially in tech when data can be weaponized. But that's a very broad matter of strategic policy decisions.