Actually this is not even close to nationalization.
The article's title is misleading even by the standard's of the article, which goes on to call it, "quasi-nationalization".
But even that is misreading the situation.
The objective is not "control" of the tech sector as the article pretends, it is just greater collaboration. So the state and tech companies can both benefit.
The state doesn't want the burden of taking control. Plus they don't want to interfere and slow things down. They want to learn from tech to better their own ogranizations and also to teach tech how they can benefit from working with the state more closely.
It's about greater integration, not control. And since China is so successful at organizing and governing more than 1 billion people already, the more they work with cutting edge tech, the better things will get.
You can say they are making a police state, but at least they can maintain law and order, and are willing to keep thinking long-term and keep innovating even in government. The government wants to support its nation's tech companies. If Chinese tech companies can become the best / most valuable in the world, it will be more advancement toward the great rejuvenation of the Chinese people that China is pursuing.
In the drive to find any negative spin to put on Chinese progress, commentators frequently miss important points, and mischaracterize / misread significant developments. Finding fault is easier, and perhaps more satisfying for someone who is really desperate to feel good about themselves without other reasons to, but seeing what's really going on is more useful.
Macron is hawkish about surveillance, despite public appearances. Long term, they want everything.
I think the main idea now is: let’s make it appear trusted, and see who signs up.
End to end encrypted is no good if there are side channel attacks to get your keystrokes, like from say, closed source radio firmware zero days.