[JumpCrisscross]

> the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work

Sure, but they have the right to self select out of the civic process (as well as to hear and repeat such things). I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked; the speech still has a right to the light of day.

[falcolas]

> I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked

Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up? There are a lot of catchall clauses built into the bill which could easily cover the website as well.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up

The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera. The closest thing that could happen is the domain is seized and it winds up behind TikTok.cn.

[falcolas]

> The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera

All of which can be argued for the app as well. Frankly, I'd want something a bit more specific. Especially since the government has used vague laws and language to quite effectively nuke specific websites before.

The thing that could happen is TikTok being findable only at 205.251.194.210 or its ipv6 equivalent.

[dylan604]

TIL tiktok.com was a thing. I had assumed it was app only. <shrug>