There is no evidence that it is banned. ByteDance just made the same app for the PRC market

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-tiktok-banned-in-china/

Well the CCP does exert considerable control over TikToks parent company ByteDance. The CCP has already utilized data from TikTok to track protestors and other “dissidents”

https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-bytedance-user-data-d257d98125f69ac80f983e6067a84911

No the CCP does not own Tik Tok but it might as well own it.

Unfortunately this situation is not unlike what the US government likely does. However, hopefully this precedence building policy recognizes that data privacy from 3rd party entities is needed. Will that standard be applied to US companies? Not likely any time soon but I’m optimistic.

That’s odd. I’m surprised they blocked it for you. I also work for the US federal government and I haven’t had any issues with using Proton at work. I wonder why the difference.

A fair question.

I view him as unbiased because he doesn’t promote Joe Rogan but also doesn’t dismiss the the good aspects of Joe Rogan. He views Joe Rogan as nuanced as he should.

Johnny Harris didn’t rush to label him Joe Rogan as horrible or great.

One good way to get an understanding is to watch the summary of Joe Rogan that Johnny Harris, a YouTube journalist did.

While it won’t give you a summary of each episode that Joe Rogan does it will give you an unbiased look at what Joe Rogan’s program is all about

Why does Google have to restrict which form of advertising he needs to use?

By confining him to certain types of advertising, it makes him less appealing to advertisers.

What if these accusations end up being false? I’m not losing sleep over Russell Brand losing money but if we hold the same logic it could damage smaller entities that can’t afford it.

We see this with channels like the Armchair historian. Google demonitized that channel just because they had Nazi flags in a historical context when talking about WWII.

Another case could be made for anyone who wants to defame another individual. If someone doesn’t like management for a local restaurant that advertises on YouTube, someone can just say “I heard from several people you had rats in your restaurant” or “I heard you had racist employees in your restaurant”. We now live in a world where just the allegation is enough to damage an entity, regardless of if it is based in fact.

But why can’t those advertisers just block him as an individual?

We are now in a world where accusations now result in a de facto guilty verdict. We already saw this with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

No need for YouTube to blanketly make the decisions for all advertisers

For at least your first 2 points, I would argue that websites are designed with features and are exclusive to chromium based browsers (Chrome, Brave, and Edge).

The Bitwarden issue may just be Bitwarden related.

I haven’t observed the other items so I can’t speak to them.