[aragonite]

Re "it's not a ban, it's forced sale" I think EFF makes a very good point. I'd put it as follows. We tend think of banning X unreflectively as not allowing X to continue to exist, but it's perfectly possible to ban X by allowing X (i) to continue to exist but (ii) not to continue to have such-and-such (important) property.

For example, suppose a left-wing administration does not like a right-wing publication and demands that it be sold to one of a list of potential left-wing owners or face a ban. It would then clearly be absurd to say: "it's not a ban, it's forced sale," because it clearly is a ban of the right-wing publication's as it currently exists, i.e. a ban of its right-wingness. Even if, legally, the right-wing publication is allowed to continue to exist as the same legal entity after the sale, its former right-wing character has been banned and for all intents and purposes it's no longer the same publication.

(Needlessly to say, this is not intended as an exaxt analogy to the TikTok situation. It's intended rather as an example showing that the inference from "the bill allows X to continue to exist" to "the bill does not ban X" is invalid.)