Calling it a "TikTok ban" is sort of inaccurate, but unfortunately that's how the media and politicians have referred to it. The act doesn't ban TikTok; it bans TikTok from having China-based owners (in this case the Chinese company ByteDance). The act requires the China-based owners to sell TikTok to non-China-based owners or cease operations in the US.

I'm guessing Congress justifies its authority here based on national security. The bill refers to "foreign adversary controlled applications".

Whether it's a "ban" or not gets into "ship of theseus" territory. The company as it exists is not allowed to continue existing. A new corporate structure with new owners is required or the app will be banned.

From the point of view of users I don't think anyone cares who owns it, they would just care that the product continues to exist. In that sense if they divest it is not a ban at all.

And the whole ban originated from TikTok, hence the name

Unequivocally yes. The legislature of the United States government can pass a bill to ban your business.

This is also overwhelmingly likely to go unchallenged by the court system due to the provision being passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

What would give you the impression that the government cannot ban a business?

For example, how would they address it? Govt banning services of ByteDance Inc.? They will change their name. Services of company headquartered at 11 Example Street, ExampleTown, PRC? Change their headquarters. Services using given logo? Modify the logo. Services using given brand name? Change it slightly. IP address range? Domain name? And so on.

Internet service by one company is not trivial to address in a "ban". Unlike, for example, a chemical molecule. At least they have the experience in specifying and addressing that.

We have a rather large amount of experience with sanctions and people trying to evade them.

I think we might be able to manage to identify a company with hundreds of millions of users trying to mask themselves by... changing their name.

It's not like we're going to firewall them off. The bill bans distribution of the app in the US app stores and US companies from offering any kind of internet hosting services related to the app.

So providing tiktok app and running from servers abroad is ok? :D Talk about causing the opposite of the law's intentions.

Yes, if TikTok wanted to provide an .apk from a non-US server that connects to non-US servers to operate, that would not be prohibited by this law. I'm sure there are hundreds, even thousands of current American TikTok users who would consider making use of this.

If thousands use it then 99.99%+ of the user base would not. Which would be totally fine in the eyes of the laws objectives

My wife uses Douyin in the USA on her iPhone with no proboem.

Douyin is available in the US iPhone app store?

I don't think so. But you can easily switch to the Chinese app store from America, you just need RMB to buy any paid apps. You can have apps installed from both stores on your phone.

> For example, how would they address it?

The same way that the government addresses most issues. They tell people not to do something, and if they refuse then they get fined, their assets frozen and confiscated, and eventually people are arrested.

Bytedance would have to withdraw all its assets and employees from anywhere in the west to escape the consequences.

You will find that few large US companies are looking to provoke the federal government. Apple, Google, ISPs, cloud providers, etc. will all be compelled by this law.

They have to store the data somewhere and it much more likely that they will sell than engage in value killing whack-a-mole with federal agencies

Cringey coder perspective. These ideas may avoid the letter of the law. They don’t avoid the spirit of the law. You will be punished for trying such lame evasion efforts. You can’t hide hundreds of millions of users.

More like system architect's one.

Congress has extremely sweeping authority to dictate interstate and international commerce. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; "

Importantly, this was a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. A fair vote by all the representatives of a Republic should be able to do anything constitutional. And what's constitutional can also be amended by a large majority.

The state can pass whatever legislation it wants; we've seen convincingly that constitutional restraints are not substantially motivating (although the strongest evidence for this in the current week is not this bill, but the legislation surrounding the ongoing surveillance regime(s)).

But the bigger question is the literal one you've asked: how the federal government can just ban TikTok?

What makes the government think that they can stop packets at some arbitrary line in the sand, when every indication in the history of the internet shows the opposite?

They aren’t going to stop packets. They are going to prevent TikTok from doing business in the US. No apps in the App Store, no ads from American companies, etc. no money from American customers.

...but doesn't this just seem completely delusional?

They were unable to stop drug cartels. And drug cartels need a highly centralized and sophisticated organization, and need to ship a physical product across a border.

Just blocking them from the iOS AppStore would probably drop users by 50%, and that’s pretty easy to do.

So are you saying no apps can ever be banned?

Whether right or wrong, whether politically motivated or not, it has gone through the house, senate and president which is not a small thing.

They can ban foreign companies and products, they can’t do the same to Americans they would have to regulate/restrict the category of business

They are claiming a national security threat.

It's a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional in the USA. May or may not be struck down in court.

It's not. A bill of attainder declares a specific person guilty for past actions and punishing them - thereby denying them the right to a judicial trial.

While this bill does refer to a specific organization, it doesn't punish them for past actions, but rather constrains US companies in the future. That is perfectly ok as shown in cases like Huawei v. United States or Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. DHS. Like Kaspersky, it's "prophylactic, not punitive."

No it's not. China doesn't have any civil/constitutional rights in the USA.

The constitution makes no reference to citizens with regards to what congress can and cannot do. Nearly all these things are couched with "congress shall pass no law" -- the focus is restricting the behavior of congress rather than the citizenry.

This is a totally bunk argument. If you want an argument that does work against the constitution, SCOTUS' "empty shell" or Lysander Spooner's "Constitution of no authority" are of far more weight, but have more disturbing implications (e.g. You can disregard it completely; our system is precisely the "odious arbitrariness" the founders denounced).