| What's a better way to refer to the bill than a "ban"? I want to know what other people would use as a more "accurate" term. I know that reducing an entire bill to a single term runs the risk of oversimplifying, but it can also be a normal technique of communicating with laypeople like myself. From the law in question, here is the excerpt that I think is the most important part [1]: > (a) In General.— > (1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following: > (A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application. > (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States. Copying what I wrote elsewhere: An alternative to getting banned is divesting to a US company. You might think of that as "getting banned is an alternative to divesting to a US company", but I think that's the wrong framing in consideration of US TikTok users, who by default have a First Amendment right to use TikTok as long as TikTok willingly continues offering service to the US. |