>Countries have the right to ban foreign adversaries

This is the same logic that China uses to ban all western apps. Fortunately in the west, countries don't have rights, people do, and citizens generally have the right to run whatever software they want on the hardware devices they own. Governments that violate such rights get challenged in court.

Aren’t there other foreign goods that you can’t get in the United States?

Apart from the asinine war drugs, risky foods, weapons, counterfeit goods, and dangerous devices, ordinary prohibited goods aren't arbitrarily decided by fiat of Big Mother.

Kinder Surprise were banned due to the letter of the 1938 FFDCA law as "non-nutritive object".

There's usually a regulatory reason, such as homologation on automobiles. There are some protectionist laws around types of automobiles that can be imported.

> citizens generally have the right to run whatever software they want

Fortunately this isn't a restriction on citizens.

Instead, is a law regulating businesses.

We have all sorts of laws, regulating businesses, all the time.

It's a very convenient arrangement - first you get a couple of tech megacorps to monopolize the device and app store market to the point where the vast majority of apps are only ever published on their platforms and through their distribution channels. And then you regulate those megacorps and claim that this has nothing to do with restricting what the citizens have access to, even though the net result is the same.

If you don't like the fact that businesses can be regulated, then there is a whole bunch of other laws you are going to have to object to first.

For example, very recently there was a ruling that allowed California to have food regulations for pork sold to its residents.

Do you think that this food regulation is some sort of huge infringement on citizen rights?

Because it isn't much different than other regulations that you are complaining about.

I don't mind regulation when it serves a useful purpose, but 1) this one does not, and 2) pretending that it doesn't affect individuals because it only directly targets companies is misleading. If you genuinely believe that TikTok should not be available to anyone, then argue that openly.

> 1) this one does not

Well, it does if you think that TikTok is a national security threat.

> If you genuinely believe that TikTok should not be available to anyone

This statement of yours just means that you can't argue against the actual point, and instead have to make up a new one to attack, instead of the actual stated position.

The actual stated position is that we put regulations on businesses all the time.

And it is better to do that, than enforcement on individuals.

The reasons why it is better to do completely standard, and normal business regulations, is because if enforcement was on individuals instead, it would have to involve draconian things like checking everyone's phones all the time.

Nah. There is no need to do that. App store regulations are perfectly fine instead, and there is no need to defend some absurd position, that nobody is arguing, like that everyone's phones should be investigated by the government.

And this is no different than when California puts laws on pork businesses.

Why is this distinction important?

>This is the same logic that China uses to ban all western apps

Except it doesn't. It's just that apps are required to follow local laws, and many companies - like Google - don't want to, because their entire business is exploiting users' privacy.

That's a pretty weird read on why Google pulled out of China.

Because you only know the Google's side of the narrative.

Do states?

(edit - oops, see correction below) There's nothing in this law that would unban TikTok if its ownership were transferred to a US corporation.

Actually - correcting myself. There IS a clause that unbans TikTok on ownership transfer. I didn't read far enough down:

> Section 4. Contingent voidness. [This act] is void if tiktok is acquired by or sold to a company that is not incorporated in any other country designated as a foreign adversary in 15 C.F.R. 7.4 at the time tiktok is sold or acquired.

If TikTok is transferred to a company not owned by China the act goes away.

So they could just do that, then reacquire the company and this law vanishes in a puff of logic.

The law would still be on the books. Presumably it would become non-void, and immediately active, if a Chinese company repurchased TikTok from a non-Chinese company. Much like unconstitutional laws prohibiting abortion became immediately active again after the recent Supreme Court ruling.

As I understand it, nope. States can't negotiate treaties on the US' behalf. Commerce and sanctions would fall under that as I understand it.

States also can't regulate interstate trade, which I believe trying to penalize Apple and Google would constitute, since neither has a office in Montana.

Couldn't it target the shops and companies that sell devices with Apple/Google app stores on them, instead?

Why can California require auto manufacturers to comply with their emissions standards if it is in effect regulating interstate trade?

California doesn't require auto manufacturers to do anything. They require dealers and individuals to only buy cars that meet said emissions standards, on penalty of refusing to allow them to be registered to be driven on the state's roads.

Yes there is. It's right there in section 4.

What makes a company a "US Company"? Aren't the big social media companies all global with offices in the US and most other countries? I get that a lot were founded here, but I don't get the impression that they feel that they derive any particular allegiance to the US because of that. Isn't it to the shareholders?

Montana isn't a country.