> There is no such thing as a bill comprehensive and deep enough to ensure that a tool like tiktok not be abused by the Chinese government. This is Cold War 2.

> There is no such thing as a bill comprehensive and deep enough to ensure that a tool like tiktok not be abused by the Chinese government. This is Cold War 2.0 boogeymanism. It's "the state of exception" [0]: the idea that normal laws aren't sufficient because the enemy is too clever and too powerful so instead we need exceptional laws. (And afterwards more exceptional laws, because they haven't been defeated yet.) You bring up what would happen in the 1950s if we hadn't been more careful, but look at the actual 1950s: a time full of paranoid McCarthyism, innocent people being defamed and branded as Soviet sympathizers, the FBI framing people, the CIA testing drugs on unwitting citizens, and almost a nuclear first strike. "National security" logic rarely invites a nuanced and balanced assessment of the threat and possible remedies; rather, it's a kind of dogma that takes for granted that the threat is exceptional and requires an exceptional answer. The discilpined alternative is to make good laws that enshrine a principle rather than attack an enemy (e.g. data protection, public opinion manipulation). This deals with the problem and also preserves the civil institutions and trust in the rule of law. If the problem morphs, then pass new laws. That's how legislating is supposed to work and how it works for every other problem. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception