The first two don't apply because they don't share the hyper personalized nature of social media. No two people see the same thing so it's impossible to react to foreign propaganda. Books and movies don't work that way.

Third example is irrelevant because it's impossible to achieve the efficiency (reach) that social media has.

I don't really see your point. Tiktok is a video library. With the exception of private videos, anything hosted on the app can be viewed by anyone. Whether or not the app provides a personalized algorithmic selection of videos does not have any bearing on the more fundamental question of whether American's have the right to access foreign media.

Of course it's relevant. TikTok should be considered a broadcaster. We have not allowed foreign ownership of a broadcaster since 1934.

A book does not broadcast in the same way.

Since when are social media apps considered broadcasters? In fact, section 230 legally protects social media apps from the civil liabilities of broadcasting. You're also just distracting from the actual issue. Being that, as citizens of a democratic republic promoting free speech, press, association, etc., do you think we have a right to view foreign media (including broadcasts for that matter)?

> TikTok should be considered a broadcaster.

> Since when are social media apps considered broadcasters?

Not OP but they said should be, not is

Yes we should be able to view it. This restriction doesn't prevent us from viewing these creators or their videos. It DOES mandate that it is sold to a US-based company.

Allowing a foreign adversary to consistently pump in propaganda just isn't something that should be protected by free speech... You, a citizen, are allowed to go find whatever media your heart desires. A foreign power is NOT allowed to force feed your propaganda. How is that not clear?

Free speech protects our ability to not be prosecuted for saying or viewing something controversial. Why on earth would that same protection be extended to a foreign power?!

We live in a democracy. If you get enough people to vote for this platform, then sure let's do it.

You can't compare a popular bipartisan law to a hypothetical thing you just made up.

Peoples' votes matter

The popular vote for president would like a word. And, yes, I know Trump won that too, but the point still stands that it doesn't matter.

I didn't seen any election in which this was on the table. This issue is popular and bipartisan amongst congresspeople, but that cannot be extrapolated to the public.

Moreover when there's 100s of issues at stake in any election you will inevitably have to vote for a candidate that disagrees with you on some of them.

Moreover the entire point of "rights" like free speech is that some things need to be protected beyond a simple majority.