But Tiktok "is". At least Tiktok USA is registered in the US as a US corporation and therefore gets the same protections under US laws. Therefore constitutional protections apply.

You could say the owners of Tiktok don't necessarily get the same protections, but that's a different case. And in this case it is more similar to the Chinese Exclusion Act, but for business purposes rather than immigrational purposes, basically stating that Chinese people aren't allowed to own businesses that operate in the US, and must divest.

The constitution is explicit when it carves out exemptions for citizens and non citizens. The first amendment is not one of them.

It also doesnt carve out children at school or yelling fire. Yet state employees are absolutely allowed to censor children in and on public property.

The constitution, or the bill of rights we appear to be talking about, or all the amendments? This seems wrong on the face of it.

The only mentions of citizenship I know of are for voting, juries, and elected positions.

By your argument Citizen's United wasn't just an abomination, but barred the congress from limiting foreign political donations, because money is speech? Interesting that's never been brought up.

I mean, I'm willing to listen to the ACLU, but the argument that forcing the sale of a corporation limits free speech is fairly weak, when commercial speech is routinely limited... as it should be. Do you think there is a corporate free speech right to sell personal information? What limits to profit on commercial speech can there be? If an unprofitable social media app were forced to close down, wouldn't laws allowing collection of debts be violations of the 1st amendment?

Case law does not protect non-citizens. People have been deported for being communists.

"Congress shall make no law" doesn't mean "Unless foreigners are involved"

China is not a "foreigner" it's a hostile foreign government.

Some animals are more equal than others?