[wlindley]

According to: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038...

"FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— (A) any of— (i) ByteDance, Ltd.; (ii) TikTok;…"

How is that not a Bill of Attainder? Although it does not explicitly say that these companies are guilty of a crime, since when is it legal to make a law against a specific person, group of persons, or a specific company? That cannot possibly be Constitutional.

[krapp]

>Although it does not explicitly say that these companies are guilty of a crime,

That's one reason why it isn't a Bill of Attainder.

I know you think you've found a silver bullet here but you haven't.

Here's one article explaining in detail why the argument you're putting forth is flawed -- https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/is-the-tiktok-bill...