US companies does have comparable access - just follow PRC laws. What proponents of reciprocity argument wants is US to have ADVANTAGED access - they want US so

US companies does have comparable access - just follow PRC laws. What proponents of reciprocity argument wants is US to have ADVANTAGED access - they want US social media to not follow PRC censorship laws that PRC companies follow at great expense. It's like wanting to sell cars in PRC without airbags. Both facebook and Google had internal programs for PRC compliance, but was axed due to internal dissent. It's not lack of PRC reciprocity but US culture wars incompetency. On the flip side, TikTok is operating in US while following US laws that US companies do not i.e. essentially a JV with Oracle handling data and extreme level of national security oversight. That JV arrangement IS reciprocity relative to US platforms operating in PRC. Issue is TikTok still doing well while submitting any reasonable oversight short of divestment - hubris tier non-starter. TikTok currently operating in US is tantamount to if Google still operated in PRC... because PRC gov didn't have to hack them for info, because Google cooperated with PRC law enforcement and conducted lawful interception duties, and handed over dissident info (for whoever PRC determine are dissidents). That's actual reciprocity - wholely succumbing to national security considerations. Except PRC didn't require US to divest their companies, they're simply confident they had a onerous enough filtering regime that applies to all platforms (especially domestic) to fit their national security needs. On paper US could do the same for privacy legislation. But IMO this isn't about US privacy, this is about killing TikTok globally (not just in US), because US national security interests is not about "protecting" just Americans from TikTok, but removing TikTok as global platform with global influence outside of US reach.