Possibly. But, many countries are formally US allies, with deep security integration. So an American owned application is not as threatening as a Chinese owned application.
America also generally allows businesses and media from foreign companies to take part, whereas China has no such reciprocity.
Security arrangements are real things that can't be merely handwaved away as something that "should" not exist in one's ideal world.
Western media firms don't operate for 'western' interests. Fox and friends, for instance, are actively trying to undermine western civilization[1], and I'll be damned if they are doing it for my own good.
They operate for their own interests, which are almost always directly at odds with the interests of the people who actually live in the west.
[1] I have exactly as much evidence for this as you do for your claim.
As your former president eloquently explained, "USA first" is the current US doctrine. Why should the other countries accept US influence short of not having the choice as it would have pretty deep repercussions?
The game of cutting off foreign players is a luxury only the few countries can afford right now, making it look like everybody else supports the US is disingenuous.
The current age of global peace is wonderful and pleasant. It is also young and fragile. Other countries can choose who they wish to align with, I hope most liberal democracies will find the United States to be a more reliable ally than China or Russia.
The price of association with the US is, as you say, US influence; however, US influence is much less restrictive and oppressive than many other major players today and historically. Our EU allies regularly criticize us in public forums; North Korea does not have the political freedom to criticize China and Belarus does not have the political freedom to criticize Russia to the same extent that United States' allies do today.
It's high time for global players to wake up from the ideal world where everyone can get along with zero tariffs or restrictions. The United States must do what is in her best interests and other states should follow her lead. I believe it is the US best interest that the world is more free, and should that eventual goal require some restriction of hostile foreign entities' freedom to operate on US soil, so be it.
This is a 'us or them' dichotomy that only makes sense if you need a perpetual enemy.
Most countries criticize the US _and_ China _and_ Russia _and_ North Korea, make trade where they need to and make a balancing act with alliances and relations between all of these countries.
> It's high time for global players to wake up from the ideal world where everyone can get along with zero tariffs or restrictions.
The US have engaged into perpetual tariffs and restrictions from the day it had the power to do so. Are you assuming other countries thought they could stop that ? Or what are you even talking about ?
America also generally allows businesses and media from foreign companies to take part, whereas China has no such reciprocity.
Security arrangements are real things that can't be merely handwaved away as something that "should" not exist in one's ideal world.