I think the commenter was choosing between american vs non american influence in US politics.

Not between corporate influence and no corporate influence.

They literally said

> I have no issue with American companies trying to change American policies.

For me that's a naive stance that ignores the problem of corporate influence on politics.

Apart from that, how is US corporate influence necessarily better than foreign corporate influence? Neither care about the US general public. Some US companies knowingly harm their own citizens (Philip Morris, Exxon, Purdue, etc.)

One can argue the problem with TikTook is that it's controlled by the government of an adversary nation (from the viewpoint of the US), but it's not just the fact that the company resides in a foreign country.

Don’t misunderstand me - my interest is in effective, cooperative discussion.

I clarified someone else’s statement, like a busybody, because their position deserves to be supported or supplanted based on its own merits.

The choice they set up was an ingroup vs outgroup choice. You are discussing fair systems.

There’s a common ground between both these positions, and I would have liked to see that conversation occur.

For what it’s worth, I can sympathize with a desire to support in groups, however fair systems are the practical way to achieve that.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

> The choice they set up was an ingroup vs outgroup choice.

What I wanted to point out is that it really is a false choice because it assumes that US companies have the interest of the general public in mind.

I believe the patent was highlighting an additional issue and providing a pretty clear follow up question.

Not equating the two questions.