Maybe all of the people downvoting could try and make a coherent argument against this post instead. Although it's pretty hard to argue against objective facts.
The US can ban TikTok all they want, but the worms aren't going back into the can.
The US can ban TikTok all they want, but the worms aren't going back into the can.
> I can get a lot of that kind of content through other channels- there are plenty of podcasts out there.
The law doesn't ban the discussion of any particular topics, it bans social media platforms that are subject to the laws and control of adversarial governments. Specifically, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, who are already prohibited from participating in sensitive parts of the US economy.
If social media exists to collect vast amounts of information about its users--and it does--then it's reasonable for the government to be concerned about whether that information can fall into the hands of an adversary.
If social media exists to manipulate its users into believing and doing things that benefit the platform--and it does--then likewise the government has good reason to be concerned about how an adversary might use that.
Framing the law as a ban on particular viewpoints is misguided at best, misinformation at worst. And, as you and the GP comment both point out, it wouldn't work since other platforms and venues are still wide open.
The can of worms being left open is a feature not a bug. It's one reason why the law can survive a strict scrutiny review.
https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...