Same logic applies to every part of the first amendment:
1. Can government ban the Episcopal Church as long as they don’t prosecute individual members of if?
2. Can government ban Ruthless Records from selling the song “Fuck the Police”?
I'm old enough to remember the radio version of "Fuck the Police" because playing the song was banned.
If it's not TikTok's speech how can they claim the first amendment? The users speaking can just as easily use a different app, website, newspaper, whatever.
This is something you have to argue, not something that you can just declare. And the "just as easily" is where you're going to run into a problem.
"People use a product to speak therefor the product cannot be regulated" is not a claim I'd heard before the TikTok debate. Seems to contradict previous interpretations of the first amendment that allowed the regulation of cable, TV broadcast, and radio.
So everyone is the press and any product used to speak cannot be regulated? This country has regulated TV broadcast and radio for longer than I've been alive so that's a pretty big change.
It seems clear to me that any company hiding behind Section 230 neutrality cannot also claim to be a member of the press.