Or else be removed from French app stores yet remain available online? Without being sanctioned or blocked?
ByteDance's CEO perjured himself in front of the Congress [1]. Meanwhile, you can't Google the 1989 Tianamen Square massacre in China because (a) Google is blocked, as in actually blocked, and (b) the very term is blocked.
There are reasonable objections to this bill. Claiming we're stooping to China's level is not one of them.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/05/30/tikt...
Oddly, the articles I've seen don't feel the need to specify there. Seems like a big difference to me, and requiring sale to specifically US buyer seems rather more of a takeover.
No, you are correct. Thank you. It must simply be no longer controlled by a foreign adversary [1]. (And yes, the term foreign adversary is defined in law [2].)
An EU, Gulf or Indian buyer would be totally fine if done in good faith, i.e. without being a front for Chinese interests.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521... § 2(g)(6)
[2] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...
It's really not. ByteDance isn't being sanctioned. TikTok.com will remain accessible to everyone in America. This is simply saying if it can't be sold to an American (EDIT: non-Chinese) buyer within a year, it gets removed from U.S. hosting and U.S. app stores.
> you can't claim being "the free world" by imitating China
Good thing we're not.