you need to try harder, you're not making any sense. For some reason you're mad the gov who pays Musk gets to dictate terms on projects that concern national security technology. You then tie this to China somehow because we restrict what our companies do over there. You then try to equate China dictating terms on other governments as if it's an analogy that's apt when China sure as hell dictates how their companies interact w/other governments.
You're really challenged, aren't you... No I'm not mad the government pays Space X to take over the private business' operations for secrets missions. But the US government not only doesn't allow Chinese businesses with links to their military to sell their wares in the US (fair enough) but it also pressures its "partners and friends" to do the same, thereby endangering the viability of Chinese businesses abroad. It's as if China's gov prevented Boeing from selling their planes to Chinese airlines on the account that Boeing also sells to the US military. My reference to China is the opposite of your statement. It's not about US company working in China, it's about US gov preventing Chinese companies to compete with US products across the world, for example Huawei vs Cisco.
pot calling kettle black much? sure you're not, which is why you're quoting 3 yr old non sequiturs: and wtf does that have to do w/the price of tea in China? Other than trying to recover from being called out on the irrelevancy of 3 yr old news? Plus let's not forget, your own words: Then perhaps you ought to use a better example than the US dictating terms for domestic companies and not foreign ones: Does the US pressure allies to follow their lead on tech embargos? Sure it does. Was China barred from multiple governments due to intrusive surveillance software/hardware compromising national security due to tight alliances? Also true. Was that topic of the US pressuring allies ever brought up in the article quoted other than after getting called out? nope.