Then couldn't you, as someone who's mentioned journalists and journalistic liberties throughout this conversation, understand the danger of shutting down an entire platform because the government isn't in control of the views being presented, especially when the views are coming from its citizens.

You don't think there could be another reason? If it was just about data security shouldn't we be more worried about Meta, like with its open work with Cambridge analytica, or companies like Apple who just rolled out an update putting all their users data into AI without opt-out.

Trust me I understand you're attempting to speak in good faith. The problem is there seems to be an underlying bias that I am trying to point out may be swaying this opinion. Which is why I ask for you to elaborate. Far from "China hawk" while calling them "hostile foreign adversary" points at bias.

I mean you are full throated supporting something that you are claiming now are "above (your) pay grade" when presented with pressure to elaborate on your support.

As for your question, who is the "hostile foreign adversary" in this situation realistically? Be honest.

Every foreign power already has access to the power of precollected data at the granular residential level if they are willing to pay US data brokers for this readily available information. This is a lot of the reason this argument falls apart under even the slightest pressure. Which is why I ask.

Would you consider elaborating on why, other than China bad, you have come to this conclusion? I've read your article and the only inference you make is because they have to abide by Chinese law to continue to function as a company in China.

Then remove the lobbying and Meta all together. Do you think it's acceptable for the government to strong-arm an international company to sell it's assets to US interests at threat of losing market access?

So you approve of a major company, like Meta, lobbying for the government to strong-arm it's competitors to either sell or lose market access?