[Oranguru]

However, these rights should be guaranteed to a company operating in the USA and strictly adhering to US law. Of course, if the law is (arbitrarily) changed to make this illegal due to the Chinese government's stake, then it could be forced to shut down, but that would be inconsistent with the constitution.

[motorest]

> However, these rights should be guaranteed to a company operating in the USA and strictly adhering to US law.

ByteDance is a Chinese company with it's headquarters in China. The so-called TikTok ban is a call for ByteDance to sell off it's controlling position over TikTok, otherwise TikTok can no longer operate in the US.

The fact that China is spinning this issue as a TikTok ban is telling.

[bdangubic]

What would you call Tesla not being able to sell cars in China unless sold to a Chinese company - what might you call that? :)

[josephcsible]

I'd call it "the way things actually were from 1994 until 2022": https://www.carscoops.com/2021/12/china-will-no-longer-requi...

[bdangubic]

so not “ban”? :)

[josephcsible]

Giga Shanghai opened in 2019 while that was still in effect, so no, not "ban".

[sanderjd]

If they want to do that, of course they can. (And indeed, Chinese car companies are already treated differently in US law to such an extent that they aren't in the US market at all.)

[sanderjd]

You didn't say why that would be inconsistent with the Constitution, you merely asserted that it is. But it isn't.

Our government gets to decide the terms under which businesses operate in this country. Always has and always will. This is not a constitutional question.