3 ms·

But that's the thing, the US isn't banning TikTok, the US is forcing Bytedance to divest its majority control. If Bytedance would rather shut down than do that,

But that's the thing, the US isn't banning TikTok, the US is forcing Bytedance to divest its majority control. If Bytedance would rather shut down than do that, it's their choice to make. The framing of this as a "ban" is truly one of the silliest aspects of this story, and allows the drawing of false equivalencies such as you've done above.

ASalazarMX 2y ago
"I'm not taking your farm from you, I'm just forcing you to sell it to my friends, or close it." An outright ban would be less circuitous.
- EA-3167 2y ago
  An outright ban would be unconstitutional, and wouldn't be necessary. The issue is who owns and runs TikTok, so why not use legally extant powers to correct that? I'll add that this isn't a country versus a farmer, or even a country versus an individual... this is the US vs China. So please, spare me the loaded analogy, there are no poor farmers here.
  - ASalazarMX 2y ago
    > The issue is who owns and runs TikTok, so why not use legally extant powers to correct that? This is a step short of expropriation. If there are real security concerns, prove them and ban the product. It only matters who runs TikTok when you want control of it, not public security. Weird that you focused of the word "farm", it could be easily taken as an online content farm.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> But that's the thing, the US isn't banning TikTok, the US is forcing Bytedance to divest its majority control To me this is indistinguishable from a ban, and I suspect the same is true for many of the politicians who actually voted for this. The semantic difference you bring up is irrelevant to most people.