Those were genuine questions, not patronizing. I just don't agree with the characterization that things are "unfair". I don't see how you can recognize that buying means getting value in return while still talking about fairness at the same time. The fairness is already embedded in the very transaction!
You talk about anti-competitiveness, but isn't that just a matter of perspective and not an absolute moral high ground? When Microsoft was accused of anti-competitive behavior, it was because Microsoft used existing cash and influence to squat smaller parties like flies and gain dominance. In the same manner, we can argue that Facebook could squat other smaller social media networks in China as flies because Facebook was already big, and thus Facebook would be the one being anti-competitive.
I won't argue with you about US interests. But I can't agree with taking the moral high ground.
> "Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports."
You can argue that China is not engaging fully in the free trade principle. But in my opinion it still doesn't make sense to turn this into a moral high ground thing, because all countries have import and export controls to some extent, because in the end all countries look after their interests.
And not everybody agrees that the free trade principle is a good thing (note: this is not my personal opinion). See the rise of populism in Europe, and the number of people who yell that the Poles or refugees or whatever are "stealing our jobs". Now that I think about it, don't you have the same issue with US people complaining about Mexicans?
Turning this into a moral issue is, in my opinion, a childish view of how the work works. I am saying: let's recognize that this is plain geopolitics and interests, and not about morals.
