This is exactly what you wrote:

None of those companies give “backdoor access”. All information has to be obtained legally via a warrant.

I pointed out that legality is not part of the definition of "backdoor access", so the second part of your statement does not at all not support the first part so your entire argument in that post is unsupported.

I don't even disagree that "American tech listed above does not provide additional access to data that Chinese tech isn’t also forced to comply to" - sadly, the limits on the subversion of American tech for surveillance seems to be only technical (as Snowden's revelations abundantly showed, the Law is not the limiting factor for surveillance in the US), so American tech probably provides the exact same level of additional access to data as Chinese tech and should be treated with the same distrust.

However I merelly responde to that very specific, very assured statement you made, which is simply wrong in technical terms.